Alex Kurtagic

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Africa Must Deindustrialize

I read with interest Denis Mangan's recent article, calling for an end to Western foreign aid to Africa.

I deployed the same arguments, and many more, in the Anti-Geldof Compilation CD I organised five years ago (and which comes with a 28-page booklet, containing a 7,000-word refutation of the Live8 / anti-poverty campaign).

But in 2010 my position is even more radical, in that I reject not just aid, but the idea of 'development' altogether.

Development is a byproduct of the Western liberal ideology, which is founded on doctrines of equality and progress, the former of which implies a totalitarian mindset while the latter implies a linear conception of history. I ask, why do sub-Saharan Africans need to be 'developed'? The egalitarian view is that given equal opportunities, even the Kalahari bushmen will eventually 'develop' themselves into a European-style, techno-industrial civilisation, with only minor anatomical differences. My view and that of others (see Guillaume Faye) is that it is absurd to think that all the peoples of the Earth can and need to be developed. Firstly, our type of civilisation presupposes certain inborn capabilities, temperament, and proclivities that are not present in all humans and cannot be implanted through education. Secondly, and as Faye points out, were the whole Earth to be developed into a global European- or American-style techno-industrial civilisation, the planet would likely not be able to withstand it: the demands on the environment would be too great and have catastrophic results.

If the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa never developed techno-industrial civilisations, it is because they never had any need for it. What is more, even some of the fundamental features of civilisation are baffling to the peoples of Africa even today, such as what they see as an obsession for counting and measuring everything: hence why so many Africans have no idea of how old they are and why a traveller will find many parts without street names of numbered houses (natives use landmarks to find their way around).

For these and other reasons, some of which you can find in the researches of Profs. Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton, and others that you can find in Lothrop Stoddard's Revolt Against Civilization (1922) and Hesketh Prichard's Where Black Rules White (1900), Africa needs to be allowed to deindustrialise and to regress to pre-colonnial conditions. The nation states created there by the European powers must be allowed to disintegrate, and Africa as a whole must be allowed to re-organise along traditional, tribal lines. While North Africa will certainly remain more advanced, sub-Saharan Africa needs to be declared a natural and anthropological reserve.

Most importantly, the West must reconcile itself to the idea of a multi-tiered world, with parts of it organised along traditional or neo-Mediaeval lines, reflecting the capabilities, the temperament, and the proclivities of the peoples who inhabit those regions. This would have the further advantage of being more sustainable environmentally, as traditional and neo-Mediaeval societies do not place so many demands on the Earth.

Of course, this is a long way from happening yet. And if it happens, it will not happen because our political leadership finally reflected on their follies and decided to stop being so foolish, so selfish, and so delusional. If it happens, it will be the consequence of a systemic collapse and a fundamental realignment of values in the West.  

Untimely Observations

What Was, Must Be

One thing that always struck me about William Pierce’s broadcasts is that out of the two hundred or so that he recorded during the late 1990s, only one ever talked about the world he aspired to see following his revolution. One. Worse still, his utopian vision was not at all inspiring, being, for all practical purposes, a return to 1933. This, unfortunately, is not uncommon among those who, in some measure or another, share his ideas—even among those who are far less radical and apocalyptic, and think in terms of a ‘velvet revolution,’ or co-opting, or electioneering.

As I have written on previous occasions, if our camp is to catalyze a transvaluation of values, and eventually cause a purge of the top echelons of academic, media, and political power in the West, those whom we seek to inspire need to be given more than just a return to the past: they also need a vision that is forward-looking, indeed futuristic, even if ultimately founded on archaic principles. Otherwise, our camp will condemn itself to irrelevance, perpetuating the impression many ordinary people have that we are just aging nostalgics, who feel left out in the brave new world of progress and equality, and are reduced to waving an angry fist at modernity because we have no new ideas of our own. ‘Bankrupt’ is the term often used within the mainstream to describe our ideas and morality.

To get anywhere, one needs to know where one is going; and to get others to come along and make the hard journey to one’s paradise, one has to be able to at least describe what it looks like.

Guillaume_Faye

This is why I was interested in Guillaume Faye’s book, Archeofuturism, which Arktos Media published for the first time in English translation during the Summer of 2010. Along with Alain de Benoist, Faye is a leading exponent of the Nouvelle Droite, the European New Right. Faye, however, is more radical than de Benoist, who has accused him of extremism. And some say he is also more creative. Until recently, I only knew Faye by name and affiliation, having never taken the trouble to read him. Was it because of that photograph I have seen of him, grey-haired and scowling with bug-like mirror shades? Whatever the answer, I was pleasantly surprised when the present tome revealed that Faye’s outlook is very similar to my own. Indeed, it turns out that in Archeofuturism he articulates positions that I have articulated in some of own my articles. No wonder the book’s editor, John Morgan, was keen on my reviewing it.

Readers will easily infer at least one of the positions Faye and I share, as I have reproduced it in the second paragraph of this review. The difference is one of emphasis: I think archeofuturism is necessary to move forward; Faye thinks of it as the paradigm that must replace egalitarian modernity, come what may.

There is no question for him that the liberal project is doomed: although its proponents paint it as good and inevitable, egalitarian modernity is, in fact, a highly artificial condition, an unsustainable one, which will fall victim to the very processes it set in motion. Faye believes that we are currently facing a ‘convergence of catastrophes’. These include: the colonization of the North by Afro-Asian peoples from the South; an imminent economic and demographic crisis, caused by an aging population in the West, falling birthrates, and unfunded promises made by the democratic welfare state; chaos in the countries of the South, caused by absurd Western-sponsored development and development programs; a global economic crisis, much worse than the depression of the 1930s, led by the financial sector; ‘the surge of religious fundamentalist fanaticism, particularly in Islam;’ ‘the confrontation of North and South, on theological and ethnic grounds;’ unchecked environmental degradation; and the convergence of these catastrophes against a backdrop of nuclear proliferation, international mafias, and the reemergence of viral and microbial diseases, such as AIDS. For Faye, the way out is not through reform, because a system that is contrary to reality is beyond reform), but through collapse and revolution. As a catastrophic collapse is inevitable, revolutionary thought and action must today be post-catastrophic in outlook. He further suggests that inaction on our part will only open European civilization to conquest by Islam.

How does Faye visualize the post-catastrophic Earth? For him, the deprecation of modernity results in a two-tier world, in which most of humanity reverts to traditional or neo-Medieval societies (essentially pre-industrial reservations), while an elite minority—composed of Europeans and South East Asians—rebuilds advanced technological societies across Eurasia and parts of North America. These societies are to be, of course, archeofuturistic—hierarchical and rooted in ethnotribalism, fiercely protectionistic, yet also ones that fully exploit science and technology, even if ‘esoteric,’ non-humanistic versions of them, ‘decoupled from the rationalistic outlook.’ There is to be no global flow of capital, spreading wealth and technology everywhere: the world economy is to be inegalitarian, elitist, based on quality over quantity. There are also to be no nation states: the European Imperium is to comprise over a hundred regions, with their own languages, customs, and garb. The United States is to split in to ethnic regions (Dreamland for the Blacks), and is to stabilize for the most part according to an eighteenth-century agrarian model. The world, in sum, and in contradiction to liberal aspirations, is to become more ethnic and more differentiated, not less.

In other words, if Faye rejects modernity it is not because he a nostalgic who dreams of returning to a bygone golden age, like so many White racial nationalists today; but because he is an elitist who thinks the world must be rebuilt on entirely different foundations—foundations that are more in harmony with nature.

In order so that we may get a better sense of what he means, he concludes the book with a Science Fiction novelette, titled One Day in the Life of Dmitri Leonidovich Oblomov, and set in the year 2073. Interestingly, and to Faye’s credit, the latter does not really describe a utopia, where everyone sings and lives happily ever after; but rather showcases Faye’s imagining of what he considers will be the most likely consequence of an archeofuturist new world order. It has its own unique set of problems, as any reasonable person would expect. Yet for Faye dealing with problems is part of living, and the choice is therefore not between having or not having problems, but which set of problems is preferable to another. In any event, one can well imagine Faye’s archeofuturistic vision will make egalitarian liberals, and perhaps even some White Nationalists, shift uncomfortably in their seats.

Oblomov, however, is just a scenario. As I have previously mentioned, and as Faye states repeatedly, we must not forget about Islam. Faye stresses that it is here, among us, facing us, right now, and that no amount of appeasement or accommodating will cause it to become less of a threat. This is because, he argues, Islam is an inherently intolerant, aggressive, theocratic movement that will abide no religious pluralism. Faye believes that Islam, and for that matter the Afro-Asian immigrants colonizing our continent, must be expelled from Europe, as was done in the past.  ‘Where there is a will, there is a way,’ he states. Naturally this presupposes either deposing the White ethnomasochists, the deluded cosmopolitans, the xenophiles, and the immigration fraudsters, or being ready to replace them once they fall by the weight of their own corruption and the catastrophic consequences of their own ideology.

How do we get there? The first step is understanding where we came from, where we are, and where we are going. Faye begins the book by evaluating the current with which he was formerly affiliated, the Nouvelle Droite, and outlining the factors and ideological errors that led to its loss of vitality and eventual eclipsing by the Front National. He then presents his vision, which includes corrections of some previously held positions. This is followed by a series of politically incorrect statements—fast sniper attacks against the contemporary West that aggregate into a global analysis of its present condition. An outline of Faye’s future world system follows, in incremental order. Finally, the reader is immersed in the finished result through an exercise in fiction.

That is the first step.

The next step, having read Faye’s text, understood it, reflected, discussed it, and reached individual conclusions, is elucidating how to put the theory into practice—a task that will require our most astute minds and political operators, not to mention funding, courage, and discipline.

I find Faye’s one of the most lucid analyses and statements of a metapolitical proposition I have yet encountered. It is both creative and logically structured. It is both analytical and refreshingly constructive. And it is both intelligent and unflinchingly radical. What is more, the text flows with urgent velocity, thanks to a skilled English translation, and is copiously supplemented with useful informative notes. What more can you ask?

 

Euro-Centric

Death by a Thousand Cuts

After the disastrous economic mismanagement of a succession of Labour governments, which managed to give away 60% of the nation’s gold reserves, double public debt, build a huge out-of-control budget deficit (despite constantly raising taxes), and shrink GDP by a whopping 5% during its last full year, the incoming coalition government was faced with difficult choices.  Amazingly, they made the right one, and set out to implement drastic cuts in public spending in order to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, however, they were either unable, or unwilling, to eliminate the deficit with just cuts, and decided they also had to increase VAT and raise taxes. With citizens under ever increasing economic pressure, particularly during the past two years, during which they had to put up with bankster perfidy, government waste, fiscal rapacity, job losses, and inflation (the true extent of which remains hidden), the coalition’s decision to cut subsidies and allow universities to treble their fees was not going to be met with smiles—particularly after 13 years of a Labour government that fomented a culture of entitlement through their egalitarian efforts to extend university education to half the population.

Leftist agitators mobilised their pawns—the university students—who yesterday converged in London to protest the increase in university fees. The protest turned violent and 5,000 protesters mobbed the Conservative Party’s headquarters in Millibank, London, where property was smashed and angry graffiti sprayed on marble walls. The UCU and NUS (unions, for educators and students respectively) were there, demanding the cuts to be stopped. The Socialist Worker, a fringe Marxist organ, also made their presence felt; their placards read ‘F**K FEES FREE EDUCATION NOW’.

Stupidly, or disingenuously, the agitators blame the Conservatives, even though the Liberal Democrats, who are left of Labour, are also part of the two-party coalition government. Stupidly, or disingenuously too, they (conveniently) forget that it was Labour who created the conditions that forced the cuts in the first place: the United Kingdom is estimated to have become the most indebted country in the world during the Labour years.

Does this mean that the Conservatives are free from blame? By no means! Over successive governments they encouraged immigration, which increasingly put the education system and public services under pressure. They also engaged in deficit spending, so the public debt was bigger each time they were voted out than each time they were voted in. They aligned themselves with the United States government’s Zionist Middle East policy, which eventually led to a wave of terrorist plots and attacks. They supported the spurious wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost many thousands of millions of pounds. They ring-fenced the ever-growing international aid and ‘development’ budget, which wastes thousands of millions more every year. And so on.

The Conservatives are, in sum, as guilty as their Labour colleagues.

It is an outrage that citizens are made to pay for the blunders of governing politicians—many of whom are not even qualified to run the departments they run. Gordon Brown, for example, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer for a decade, had no training in economics: he is qualified as an historian; the topic of his PhD was The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-1929. Brown’s successor in the post, Alistair Darling, who during the 1970s supported the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International (and together with Brown ruined the British economy in the 2000s), is qualified as a lawyer. George Osborne, the present Chancellor, studied modern history. In any normal profession of high responsibility, it is expected that people be qualified for the positions they hold. In any such profession, a blunder affecting lives and / or involving large sums of money is punished with loss of employment, lawsuits, and imprisonment.

Not so with professional politicians.

Therefore, I am pleased that the current crop is being made to feel the heat, because whether Labour or Conservative, they are all responsible and it is about time they face public fury.

studemt-new_1758531c

Yet, I am irritated by how this public fury is being misdirected (and therefore made counter productive) by the Left: after all, the cuts are long over due, they need to be wider and deeper, and people need to learn to pay for the goods and services that they use, instead of relying on the government and thereby living off the taxpayer. That this means universities will lose students because their fees have become too expensive is not necessarily a bad thing. Firstly, graduate supply exceeds current needs, as evinced by the fact that not a few university graduates subsequently have difficulty finding employment and are forced to take up menial or clerical work. Secondly, many of the students currently populating universities do not belong there: not a few study junk degrees and quite a few have squeezed in thanks to ‘inclusive’ entry requirements and various equality schemes. And thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, a university education has dubious benefits, particularly for students in the humanities, whose minds are miseducated, misinformed, and systematically warped there by the egalitarian Freudo-Marxist scholastic regime.

Those aware of the latter will wonder whether said regime is up in arms partly because its members see in the cuts an erosion of their power: fewer students means fewer young minds to indoctrinate, and therefore more citizens out there, ‘in the wild’, with a looser, more rickety set of Leftist cognitive structures that are more likely to crumble in the face of a crisis or exposure to ideas not approved by the system. Fewer students also means possibly a reallocation of resources on the basis of profitability, a consequence that might entail the defunding of courses, schemes, and programmes dear to the Left—programmes that are typically heavy on ideology, light on benefits, and always vampiric money suckers.

Of course, there the legitimate issue of whether universities, able to attract only a wealthy clientele, will begin to operate more as businesses and less as centres of learning. This is a real risk when the talk is of remaining internationally ‘competitive’. If the evolution of consumer goods over the past century is any indication, this could well lead to a process or rationalisation, whereby universities evaluate their courses and their degrees on a purely economic basis, focusing solely on cutting costs and growing profits. Usually, this kind of pragmatism results in the elimination of many of the things that make life worth living, that give life meaning. It also results in the eventual growth of scams and rackets, designed to leech as much money as possible from the inadvertent. The ugly aspect of Western modernity, particularly on the aesthetic and spiritual levels, owes in large measure to the prevalence of this purely economic, materialistic outlook, not just to the rise of a culture of critique. If you are surrounded by cheap gaudy plastic, if your jeans tear after twenty washes, if your expensive watch inexplicably malfunctions after a few years, if your local estate agent is a rapacious and deceitful phony, if your friends appear or disappear on the basis of your net worth at any given point in time, it is because the individuals masquerading as friends or running the businesses concerned are preoccupied mostly with making a quick buck and see no meaning in life beyond a fat balance in their bank accounts.

For the moment, the hard Left appears resolute in its drive to force a course reversal out of the coalition; more protests are scheduled, and students are being agitated into a peasant revolt. The Left might succeed in its endeavours, even if partially, through compromise. All the same, university fees have been rising for a long time, well before the present government; and, because chronic money shortages will afflict this and any subsequent government, it seems fees will continue to rise until they reach United States levels. Should this happen, there will likely be even more foreign students (they are sought after, because they pay extra), and greater Jewish representation (they are clever and wealthy). Universities, especially elite ones, will become even more of a liberal racket, which will continue—now more than ever—actively to perpetuate a wealthy liberal establishment.

The upside is that this establishment is already hated, and, as wave after wave of ever-more indoctrinated graduates are incorporated into it, it will become even more hated, as its odious traits become more pronounced, distinctive, and extreme—more at variance with a growing body of ‘wild’ non-university-educated citizens. Said establishment will increasingly find itself at one end of a polarity, viewed more and more as a weird clique; a decadent, degenerate, incestuous freak show of beings who are completely out of touch with reality, out of synch with the universe. We already see this in many parts of Western academia, particularly in the humanities and the liberal arts, where much of the theorising is incomprehensible, bizarre, and insane.

In the long run, however, like some of the European monarchs of old, they might find their palaces burnt, their severed heads falling into wicker baskets to the cheers of angry mobs. What the character of this mob will be is not necessarily what readers of this and similar websites like to imagine. So far, at least in Europe, it looks as if it might be comprised of dark-skinned bearded men, wearing thoubs and sandals, wielding Qu’rans, and jubilant in their aggressive drive for Islamisation. This is by no means a foregone conclusion, of course, but to accept the likelihood of a different future one would need to see effective action from the Right—a feat that is next to impossible when the education system is dominated by the extreme Left. Hence, the extreme Left steals the march, with their brain-dead ‘TORY SCUM’ line.

It is easy to demand the closing down of the Department for International Development (budget £9,100,000,000 this year), the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan (cost £4,000,000,000 last year), and the injection of that money into education. The resulting spare £13,000,000,000 would indeed make a significant difference in a budget of £89,000,000,000. But the problem is not just money; it is also where it comes from, whom it funds, and what is done with it. I am all for funding research and for training our best minds; for having the very best universities in the world; and for them not being in the grip of economism. But I am against an education system in the grip of a perverse clique of Freudo-Marxist scholastics who labour diligently to miseducate, indoctrinate, mentally disarm, and instil feelings of guilt and worthlessness in our young intellectual elite—scholastics who, put plainly, abuse the minds entrusted into their care. I am against funding these Freudo-Marxist scholastics, against their enjoying a high standard of living, and against enabling them to further their aim of destroying European peoples, cultures, and civilisation. Unfortunately, any money presently received by them, whether it comes from the taxpayer via government subsidies, or via the taxpayer via fees paid directly to the universities, is money that they will use against us: against our young, and against our not-so-young, including writers for this and similar websites. Thus I do not mind seeing the scholastics, and their aberrant activist progeny, screaming in pain, dying by a thousand cuts, starved of students and resources. And I do not mind a funding shift from government subsidies to fees, as at least with fees the citizen has the option not to pay them.

Ultimately, it is dominant ideas that need to change, not just funding options. Once egalitarianism is discredited, Freudo-Marxist scholasticism will be purged from the system. Our own safety depends on whether the dominant ideas are replaced by ours, or by those of another alien group.

Untimely Observations

Mind the Bollocks

One of the tropes of multiculturalism is mainstream politicians of all stripes telling us over and over again that we need immigration because immigrants bring much-needed skills. This argument often appears next to the assertion that the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom would collapse overnight without this much-needed influx of foreign labour, as there is -- we are frequently reminded -- a huge shortage of skills in this country. It appears that the millions of currently unemployed Britons, which include large numbers of university graduates, have grown so lazy that they would rather mooch off the state than be gainfully employed.

The following story, covered last April in the British press, seems to suggest that the imported foreign labour apparently so badly needed by the NHS does not always bring the best of skills.

Surgeon 'cut off patient's testicle by mistake'

by Daily Mail Reporter

20 April 2010

A patient lost a testicle during an operation after the surgeon accidentally cut it off, the medical watchdog was told today.

Dr Sulieman Al Hourani was only supposed to cut out a cyst on the patient's right testis, but instead he 'mistakenly' removed the whole testicle, the General Medical Council (GMC) heard.

Dr Al Hourani, who worked as a locum surgeon at Fairfield General Hospital in Bury, Greater Manchester, is accused of misconduct over the error and faces further charges of injecting himself with a drug meant for a patient and stealing tablets.

The medic, who is now practising in Jordan, is not present or represented by lawyers at the Fitness to Practise Panel which is hearing his case at the GMC in Manchester.

The panel decided to proceed with the case in his absence as he had been notified of the hearing but chose not to 'engage' with the GMC or appoint lawyers to represent him.

Sarah Prichard, counsel for the GMC opening the hearing, said a man, known only as patient A, had gone into hospital for the cyst to be removed on September 5 2007.

He was the first patient of the day and his medical notes made it 'perfectly clear' the procedure was to be 'excision of right epididymal cyst'.

Ms Prichard added: 'The theatre staff will tell the panel that their impression of what happened was that Dr Al Hourani had mistakenly removed the testicle rather than the cyst and expressed him(self) rather quite surprised the testicle rather than that which the patient had consented for was removed.

'Staff had no discussion or issue raised by Dr Al Hourani in the procedure as to why he was changing from excision of a cyst to removal of a testicle.'

Ms Prichard said the mistake was made as one nurse helping the surgeon turned her back to get a stitch and when she turned around the testicle had been removed.

'Literally as the nurse turned away to get a transfixion stitch the incident occurred and the testicle removed.

'Such was the level of concern they immediately realised it could be a serious medical incident and took steps to complete the relevant documentation.'

A month later it is alleged the doctor, who qualified after studying at Jordan University of Science and Technology, stole two boxes of dihydrocodeine from a treatment room on a ward at the same hospital.

An investigation was launched and the doctor was dismissed by his employers, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, who ran the hospital.

The panel was told of another incident involving Dr Al Hourani more than a year earlier, on Sunday August 27 2006.

He had consulted a colleague and was advised to inject a patient with 10 milligrams (mg) of midazolam, a powerful sedative drug.

Instead Dr Al Hourani, who was the only surgeon at the hospital that day to treat patients, gave the patient 8mg and injected himself with the other 2mg.

Hospital staff said the doctor appeared unsteady on his feet, bumped into boxes, held on to a wall and was 'weaving' down the corridor.

He was later found in the doctors' mess room, 'deeply asleep' and taken in a wheelchair to A&E.

An internal inquiry at the hospital was launched and during disciplinary hearings he confessed to self-injecting the drug, telling colleagues it was the 'worst thing he had done in his life' and he was ashamed of himself.

A year later while still at the hospital he removed patient A's testicle by mistake, the GMC was told.

The hearing, scheduled to last three weeks, was adjourned until tomorrow morning.

Now, it might be that this was a fluke, and that, appearances notwithstanding, Sulieman Al Hourani did indeed have the required credentials to be taken on as a locum surgeon. But in a society that has become obsessed with the existence of a seemingly pervasive, endemic, entrenched, and institutional racism; in a society where the government, either directly or via its taxpayer-funded "equality" enforcement bodies, exerts constant pressure not to discriminate on grounds of race or other grounds; in a society where large organisations, public and private, have formal "equality" policies, officers, and budgets; in such a society, the sight of a coloured foreign worker in a professional organisation, however interim his position, cannot but inevitably -- sooner or later -- raise the question in the citizen's mind of whether that worker is really qualified for the position he holds, or he has, in fact, benefited from some non-discrimination policy or attitude. It is a legitimate question, since we know that in the United States "anti-racist" / "non-discrimination" programmes have meant that for decades less-qualified job or university applicants have obtaiend positions within organisations and elite centres of learning at the expense of better-qualified applicants purely because of the colour of their skin. Also, fear of appearing racist, or, alterantively, a desire to prove lack of racism, has been known to cause Whites to make poor choices when faced with members of non-European ethnic groups. (An example of this currently resides in the White House in Washington D.C.)

Therefore it bears asking, after reading the news report shown above, whether the unfortunate "accident" that took place in the Fairfield General Hospital's operation theatre would have not been prevented by institutional racism.

Indeed, I wonder whether Patient A would have not preferred a policy of more quality and less equality when it came to the utilisation by the NHS of temporary surgeons with overseas qualifications. I wonder whether he has asked the management at the hospital how it was that this Dr. Al Hourani came to make it through the selection process. After all, candidates for locum positions are supposed to undergo more rigorous scrutiny than those applying for a full-time employment contract.

There was a time when I believed that living in a civilised, First World country gave one certain guarantees with regards to personal security and levels of competence in the public and private sector. Certainly, I would not have expected to enter an operation theatre expecting to have a cyst removed (in a safe and common operation that normally lasts 15 minutes) only to be partially castrated by a clueless drug-abusing butcher with a Jordanian diploma. The advent and progression of multiculturalism has disabused me of my earlier belief.

Be that as it may, if you are over 40, beware. It seems epididymial cysts are quite common among men in the over-40s age group.

Euro-Centric

Now What?

RE: Angela Merkel's epiphany.

So, finally, a Western politician publicly acknowledges the obvious -- what the majority of the long-suffering electorate, who never asked, never wanted, and was never given the opportunity to vote on the issue of multiculturalism, has known for decades.

Very well, then. But if multiculturalism has 'utterly failed', Who will now compensate German -- and for that matter, European -- citizens for the damage that was done to European societies while this ridiculous social experiment was pursued by a tiny clique of politicans, mediacrats, and Left-wing intellectuals? Who will now clean up the mess?

Of course, no one. After all the colossal sums of money wasted in promoting multiculturalism, subsidising its malfunctioning, and patching up the consequences of its malfunctioning; after all the grief caused by this nefarious policy; after all that, the legacy remains.

And it remains because Merkel, not too unlike Gordon Brown once did before her, now talks about 'integration' and having immigrants learn German. But wasn't integration, or assimilation, the approach that existed prior to multiculturalism? And was that not also found lacking? It's worth asking, because had either approach been successful, a change would not have been felt necessary.

Euro-Centric

So Much for Nobility...

A time there was when the awarding of a title of nobility in European countries was intended as formal recognition of the recipient's service to the crown, to the country, or to the state. Under the feudal system, the honour was given in exchange for military service and was hereditary; but in modern times it has been given, at least in theory, as a very special life-time award by the state to a tiny handful of individuals deemed by it to have led a singularly meritorious career. That is why the process has been termed 'ennoblement' -- the implication being that these individuals are somehow noble and worthy of such appellation. For this reason, concommittant with the very exclusive privileges they obtain, ennobled citizens have added responsibilities, especially with regards to standards of conduct.

Ennoblement

When Tony Blair's Labour regime seized power in 1997, the nobility as a system had long been on the wane, the aristocracy having been progressively stripped of its legal powers through successive reforms. All the same, the majority of the House of Lords prior to 2000 was in the hands of a hereditary aristocracy, which were largely Conservative members. During the late 1990s, Blair undertook his long-threatened 'reform' of the House of Lords with gusto and in a partisan fashion, determined, above all, to increase Labour's representation in the chamber (according to him and his supporters, it needed to be more modern and 'democratic'). While at it, he also undertook to multiculturalise this old institution, as it was too uniformly White and male for his liking.

House_of_Lords

Two beneficiaries of Blair's policy were foreign-born Muslims: Manzila Pola Uddin (from Bangladesh) and Amir Bhatia (from East Africa), who became Baroness Uddin and Lord Bhatia respectively. They joined Indian-born Swraj Paul, since 1996 Lord Paul, and a wealthy long-standing supporter of the Labour Party and of the man who most diligently ruined the British economy in the decades since World War II, Gordon Brown.

Having been ennobled under such extraordinary circumstances, one would have thought that their Lordships and Ladyship would have gone the extra mile to prove their worth. After all, does not aristocracy mean 'rule by the best'? 

Baroness_Uddin

Yet, how did they repay the British state for the honours it bestowed upon them?

By theft.

All three have been found guilty of misappropriating public funds through fraudulent expenses claims. 

Needless to say that they are not the only ones in Parliament who have been found guilty of misconduct. The Parliamentary Expenses Scandal of 2009 provided a most unedifying spectacle, with many of these peers' 'blood-and-soil' British colleagues also caught with their arms elbow-deep in the cookie jar -- essentially pickpocketing me and all other taxpayers.

All the same, it is still especially galling when individuals who were not even born in the country and who have been awarded high honours instead of worthier citizens, behave in such corrupt and dishonourable fashion.

All now face suspension from the House of Lords and have been asked to return the £200,000 ($300,000) they stole. But in a just world, they would be stripped of their peerages altogether: these are not individuals deserving to be called 'noble'.

HBD: Human Biodiversity

The Pseudoscience of Anti-Racism

Marxist liberals call what Kevin MacDonald, J. Philippe Rushton, and Richard Lynn do "pseudoscience," but it seems they are the ones actively engaged in churning out pseudoscientific texts.

Exhibit A is the following book, which has been making the rounds through the online review circuit:

Marsh_Jason_Ed_Are_We_Born_Racist

This is the write-up that has appeared in the Male Health website:

Racism is bad for your health

From apartheid to lynchings, discrimination to expulsion, racism can be very bad for the health of people on the receiving end of it. But it can also be bad news for the racists themselves.

According to new book, Are We Born Racist?, which looks at the science and psychology behind racism, prejudice is bad for your health.

A number of studies reported in the book show that when confronted with members of another race, racists experience an acute stress reaction. The cortisol which courses through their veins as a result is part of our natural ‘fight or flight’ reaction: great in the short term for the instant energy needed for running away from sabre-toothed tigers but very damaging in the long–term because cortisol breaks down muscle tissue including the heart and undermines the immune system.

The book concludes bluntly that if you live in a multicultural society and hold racist views you are slowly killing yourself.

Cured by friendship

But there is hope. One of the book's contributors Elizabeth Page-Gould says that racism can be overcome. She reports on study she carried out in which racist individuals were given ‘friendship building’ tasks with members of another race. ‘Over the next several weeks, we watched cortisol levels diminish in prejudiced participants,’ she says, ‘a trend that lasted throughout the friendship meetings’. And, indeed, beyond.

 

Particularly interesting is the cover: a blond and very White baby and a chocolate-brown Black baby, with the latter reaching out for friendship and the former apparently snubbing him, leaning and looking away. Why not an Asian baby and a Black baby? Or a Latino baby and an Asian baby? Why not -- and this would be fairly accurate these days -- have the White baby reach out and the Black one doing the snubbing?

Sure, the contrast is greater with Black and White, so the choice of race for the infant models makes for a more dramatic image, but the underlying message is obnoxious: Blacks -- the innocent victims of the evil of racism, evidently -- want to be friendly, but Whites -- evidently all supremacists who believe in the Aryan master race -- are apoplectically prejudiced and do not want to know. Racism is, therefore, a White disease -- a disease that, as it happens, can be cured with psychological re-training on how to make friends.
 
Phew... There is hope for us yet, then!
 
By the way, were not those who disagreed with Communism in the Soviet Union declared insane by the authorities and interned in psychiatric wards? Were some not sent away for re-education?
 
But let us not get distracted with our reminiscences.

It seems there is somewhat of a major gap in the reviews I have seen of this particular text, because a key question goes entirely (and conveniently) unacknowledged: Could it not be that White people experience anxiety while in the presence of members of another race because of the attitudes and behaviour they have come to expect from them? This seems yet another attempt at blaming Whites for the failure of the multicultural experiment.
 
A reasonable person would blame the politicians who forced this experiment on a society that did not need it, did not ask for it, and never wanted it. It is they who are bad for our health, not our evolved psychological mechanisms of self-protection.

Perhaps is the aforementioned politicians who need internment in the psychiatric ward, or training on how to serve their country.

(I suspect less generous souls have imagined a different fate for some of them.)

Euro-Centric

UK Government Wants First Dibs on All Paycheques

It is difficult not to see the government as evil when we see its designated wealth confiscation agency floating proposals for an evolution of payroll tax collection that evinces certain Soviet aspirations.

'Centralised Deductions' is the HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)'s new great idea: ostensibly in an effort to improve data quality and accuracy, they are now proposing that employers pass on each employee's gross salary to a centralised calculator / tax account at the HMRC, which would then deduct income tax, national insurance contributions, and any student loan repayments, and then pass on the remainder to the employee, with HMRC paying directly into the employee's bank account.

In other words: the employer sends the whole of the employee's paycheque to the government, and the government then pays the employee after biting off everything they want from it.

As reported by CNBC in their article from 20 September:

Currently employers withhold tax and pay the government, providing information at the end of the year, a system know as Pay as You Earn (PAYE). There is no option for those employees to refuse withholding and individually file a tax return at the end of the year.

The problem, as far as HMRC is concerned, is that the present system is outmoded and outdated, not having been changed in 66 years.

The proposal by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) stresses the need for employers to provide real-time information to the government so that it can monitor all payments and make a better assessment of whether the correct tax is being paid.

An HMRC discussion paper from July sees the real-time information system as the first step of a two step plan.

If the real-time information plan works, it further proposes that employers hand over employee salaries to the government first.

According to HMRC, this would have a number of advantages, including:

5.11. The Centralised Deductions concept offers significant further benefits for individuals with income subject to PAYE. Most would pay the right amount of tax in year including those with multiple employments, short term employments, students and pensioners and so few would need any end of year adjustment.

5.12. Individuals would no longer need to understand tax codes, which are a means of hiding an individual’s personal circumstances from the employer. As employers would no longer be deducting tax, codes would no longer be needed. Individuals would be able to see a simple calculation showing the personal allowances and reliefs due to them.

5.13. HMRC would be responsible for ensuring deductions were correct and would be responsible for ensuring individuals had access to timely information about them.

5.14. Information about deductions might no longer appear on an employer generated payslip [emphasis added]. To compensate, one option would be to give individuals access to their consolidated tax account which would show how deductions had been calculated. This information could be made available in a number of ways – many would want to view it online but others might prefer alternative means.

5.15. HMRC would, at any time in the year, be able to confirm what deductions had been made and that they were correct or make necessary adjustments.

5.16. There would also be potential to simplify tax for those who have to complete a self-assessment tax return. HMRC would be able to send them self-assessment returns pre-populated with information about employment income and pensions, reducing the time needed to complete the return.

5.17. Recent research by HMRC4 suggests 66 per cent of individuals use their bank when checking whether and how much they have been paid. They would not notice any change under Centralised Deductions.

5.18. Nevertheless, such a reform would require individuals to get used to a new means of dealing with pay issues. They would continue to deal with their employer on questions about amounts and timing of gross payments, statutory payments and third party deductions, but questions about tax and NIC deductions would be the responsibility of HMRC. The handling of cases where the individual had a query about the deductions will be considered very carefully as part of this consultation exercise. Much of the information wanted by individuals in this situation could be provided through self-service, online or elsewhere. But there is potential to add to the administrative burden for both individuals and HMRC if people are unclear about who to contact with a question. This would require careful design to avoid significant additional cost to HMRC or employers.

 

(Emphases are mine.)

Leaving aside the fact that, as pointed out by George Bull of Baker Tilly in the CNBC article, the HMRC "does not have a good track record of handling large computer systems and has suffered high-profile errors with data"; and leaving aside the fact that the system would be enormous and enormously costly; "[i]f there's a mistake and the HMRC collects too much money, the difficulty of getting it back could be high with repayments of tax taking weeks or months."

Also, as another commentator has already pointed out, such a system would leave people at the mercy of the government: fiscal harassment already being a known government tactic for dealing with troublesome citizens, such level of access to a citizen's money and bank account would make it much easier to use withholding of payment or contrived bureaucratic 'errors' as a retaliatory measure were such a citizen to speak out.

Homeless_2

It bears pointing out the date of the report 27 July 2010 - this is after the last general election, which means this is not yet another instance of socialist Labour perfidy but one that must be credited to the -- now apparently even more socialist, notwithstanding cosmetic policy reversals elsewhere -- Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. This is the same government that recently announced a 'ruthless' war on tax evasion, and which is desperate for cash after 13 years of Labour profligacy and a decade during which the welfare state grew by another 40%.

Money_Sinkhole 

Having seen the top tax bite increased to 50% for those earning above £150,000 ($225,000); and having seen the coming into effect today of the Equality Act (2010), which consolidates and extends 'anti-discrimination' rules and regulations for employers; is it any surprise that both individuals and businesses are leaving the country and relocating themselves and their wealth in places with less voracious tax regimes and less invasive government bureaucracies?

More and more I am considering emigration to Antarctica -- it is a little cold, and perhaps a little Spartan, but at least for now it seems it is still safe.

Euro-Centric

Protester: Did You Not Max Out Your Credit Too?

Austerity_Protesters_-_Madrid

Madrid, Spain

Austerity_Protesters_-_Brussels

Brussels, Belgium

Austerity_Protesters_-_Warsaw

Warsaw, Poland

While some of the arguments being deployed in Europe in support of the current protests have merit, I have to laugh when I witness such vociferous opposition to the public sector cuts that governments are now being forced to implement. There is no question that the cuts are needed and that they have to be deep: Western governments have grown bloated and voracious for taxpayers' money, to the point where they have been living beyond their (stolen) means. There is no question either that the cuts will be painful for everyone. Nor is there any question that those who will experience the resulting hardship were not the ones who bailed out the banks or squandered the public purse on unaffordable, unfunded vote-catching programmes.

But this does not mean that those brandishing plackards and shouting out slogans in the streets today are free from blame. They voted for the political parties now in government, and they also voted for their predecessors, who are equally to blame for the financial quagmire that we are currently in. Take, for example, the case of Spain, where, despite universal contempt for the useless Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the incumbent Socialist party won the last election after public sector employees knowingly allowed themselves the be bribed by the Socialists with a €400 payout. That money, and more, is now being taken away, as is often the case with government handouts. Those who voted for Zapatero have no right to complain now: they deserve him and any penury caused by his criminal government.

Very much the same can be said elsewhere.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the general citizenry is just as guilty of having engaged in exactly same practice it now condemns governments for having indulged in: profligate spending and living beyond available means. According to a report presented at the Davos World Economic Forum by the McKinsey Global Institute earlier this year, the ratio of private debt to GDP in the United Kingdom -- the worst offender, incidentally -- grew by 102 per cent between 2000 and 2008, by which time household debt as debt to income ratio was already 160.

Therefore, while I am eagerly awaiting the moment when the current political establishment in Europe (and North America) is swept out of power and purged from the system, let us not ignore that the public that tolerated, financed, and kept that establishment in power needs first to accept its part of the blame. This is a pre-requisite for fundamental change.

Absent some much-needed soul-searching, no effective action will be taken (protests notwithstanding), and all we will end up with is yet more of the same.

Malinvestments

Wait a Minute...

The following article appeared in The Daily Mail on Tuesday 28 September 2010. I fail to see how a problem that was caused by too much spending -- and therefore too much debt -- can be fixed by even more spending and therefore even more debt. Are they stupid, or plain evil?

Spend for Britain: Bank tells UK's 22million savers to boost faltering economy

The Daily Mail by Becky Barrow

28 September 2010

The Bank of England’s deputy governor yesterday urged the country to go on a shopping spree to boost the fragile economy.

In an extraordinary move, Charles Bean said he wanted to see Britons ‘not saving more, but spending more’.

His remarks will surprise many at a time when record numbers are facing insolvency, the majority of workers do not have a pension and millions do not have a penny in any other savings.

But Mr Bean, who enjoys a basic annual salary of just over £250,000, said a culture of spending, not saving, was desperately needed to help the economy to recover.

For example, they should be spending money on the high street or home renovations to help businesses, rather than siphoning this money into a nest egg for the future.

Speaking to Channel 4 News, he said: ‘What we’re trying to do by our policy [low interest rates] is encourage more spending. Ideally, we’d like to see that in the form of more business spending but part of the mechanism that might encourage that is having more household spending. So, in the short-term, we want to see households not saving more, but spending more.’

As interest rates have plunged, millions of homeowners with a variable rate mortgage, such as a tracker, have seen their monthly repayments slashed.

Rather than save this money, the Bank hopes many will spend it on anything from a haircut to a new bathroom.

In reality, many people have been so spooked by the past few years that they have become far more prudent.

It comes as Britain’s debt mountain, including mortgages and credit cards, is £1,456billion, close to a record high.

Andrew Hagger, from the financial comparison website Moneynet, said: ‘Suggesting that the public should embark on a spending spree gives out completely the wrong message, particularly when so many people have no savings, no pension provision and are already struggling to make ends meet.

‘While extra spending may give the high street a temporary quick fix, the longer-term consequences could mean irreparable damage to household budgets for years to come.’

Mark Sands, national head of bankruptcy at the accountants RSM Tenon, said he was ‘stunned’ by the comments.

He predicts a record 140,000 people will be plunged into insolvency this year and said: ‘The vast majority of people became insolvent because they borrowed for something that they could have done without.’

Former Downing Street pensions adviser Ros Altmann condemned Mr Bean’s comments, warning that they would undermine retirement savings.

She said: ‘Does he not understand how dangerous it is to undermine pensions and savers?

‘The Bank of England should be controlling inflation, not damaging prudent savers.Instead it has created inflation and taken away savings income. Policymakers are only looking short-term, which is dreadfully dangerous.’

However, during the interview with Channel 4 News, Mr Bean went on to make clear that he does think that saving is a good idea overall. He said there is ‘a lot to be said for encouraging people’ to save, such as putting aside money for a deposit for a home.

Mr Bean, 52, who is a member of the Bank’s interest-rate-­setting committee and can look forward to an annual pension currently worth £70,700, said: ‘One of the most important issues that faces us is to ensure households save enough to provide for retirement, especially as people are living longer.’

The Consumer Credit Counselling Service advises people to have at least six months’ worth of their salary in a savings pot in the event of an emergency.

 

It seems the advice of Mr. Bean (and is that not an appropriate appellation for the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England?) enjoys warm support from readers. Here is a selection of comments:

Charlie Bean looks really evil. He looks like he doesn't care about anyone. He is totally selfish and hopes everyone spends all their money to get the economy boosted and he can be left with all his money so he remains rolling in it. What a hateful man.
- A lady, England, 28/9/2010 22:05

I am not going to spend. I am on benefits and I am waiting until I get a job to do any spending.
- A lady, England, 28/9/2010 21:50

It'll be an arctic day in Hell before I take financial advice from a goon like this. I hope he gets the sack and ends up living in a cardboard box under the arches, along with the rest of the former high-flyers.
- Philip, Bankrupted Britain, 28/9/2010 20:59

Perhaps he should ask all the city bonus takers to spend their cash first!!!!!!
- eric, belfast, 28/9/2010 19:57

haha iam saving thxs, you lot spend your money , i'll clean up after.
- LUKE, london, 28/9/2010 19:32

 

Malinvestments

The Hiss of the Money-Gobbling Anaconda

Yesterday the BBC reported that the U.K. Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander has launched a 'ruthless' tax evasion clampdown. He talks about the desire to avoid taxes being "morally indefensible."

What is morally indefensible is government officials squandering taxpayers' money and running up huge deficits on spurious wars, demagogic entitlement programmes, and bankster bailouts.

What is morally indefensible is government officials robbing people of their wealth by printing money every time they promise more than they can deliver.

What is morally indefensible is government officials helping themselves to the public purse to fund their lifestyles, as was so egregiously found last year in what became known as the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal.

Is it any surprise, then, against such a backdrop, that hard-working citizens would rather conceal their assets than hand it over to an incompetent, wasteful, irresponsible gang of government officials? Is it any surprise that businesses would rather pay professional tax advisors than allow themselves to be suffocated and swallowed whole by the money-gobbling government anaconda?

Okay -- perhaps the Liberal Democrats opposed the war in Iraq; but they support the war in Afghanistan, if critically; they support redistributive taxes and entitlements; and they support regulation and red tape. If they have supported the Conservative-led cuts in spending, it has been only because the fiscal situation inherited from Labour was so dire that absent immediate action there would have been hell to pay. We should not have had to wait until the economy had fallen off a cliff.

Even more disturbing is Danny Alexander's wording:

Just as it is right to ensure that every benefit is fully justified, so we must ensure that every tax bill is paid in full. There are some people who believe that not paying their fair share of tax is a lifestyle choice that is socially acceptable. Just like the benefit cheats, they take the resources from those who need them most. Tax avoidance and evasion are unacceptable in the best of times but in today's times it is morally indefensible.

Never mind that "those who need them most" tends to be governmentspeak for "those who deserve them the least but whose vote we seek to purchase through government handouts"; Alexander conflates avoidance, which is legal, with evasion, which is illegal.

Tax avoidance being the use of legal means to minimise tax liabilities; evasion being to 'cheat' the system in order not to pay tax.

In my novel, Mister, I have a confrontation on this same issue between the money- and status-obsessed Mister and the corrupt police inspector, 'Obama'. Of course, Obama claims the two are one and the same, and that the money collected through taxes is 'owed' to the government, because it is money that "belongs to the government."

The government, in fact, does not own anything -- at least, in theory. In theory it uses money given to it by the citizens for the purposes of running and maintaining public services for and on the citizens' behalf. In theory, the government needs the consent and approval of the citizens before they can take and spend any money of theirs. In practice the government extorts, willy-nilly, any amount of money it sees fit by means of intimidation and violence in order to perpetuate itself and extend its power -- if the citizen occasionally benefits, it is purely incidental. When is the last time your objections to how your tax money is being spent were noted?

Phrases like "paying their fair share", therefore, sound intolerably specious -- particularly from a politician known to practice tax avoidance himself and who only three years ago was investigated for non-payment of capital gains tax.

Malinvestments

Hyperinflation -- Rather Seriously

Warren Buffett recommendations notwithstanding, it says something about the state of our economy when someone decides it is time to resurrect a 35-year-old account of the Weimar-era hyperinflation.

Written during the stagflationary 1970s, Adam Fergusson’s When Money Dies: The Nightmare of the Weimar Hyperinflation contains much to titillate our morbid curiosity, besides an instructive illustration of what we can expect should the Austrian economists’ gloomiest prophecies ever come true.  (The book, long out of print, was fetching close to $700 on eBay this summer, and has now been made available in electronic format.)

Defined in the present text as occurring when the rate of inflation exceeds 50 percent per month, hyperinflation is caused by an uncontrolled increase in the money supply and a loss of confidence in the currency. Because of the absence of a tendency towards equilibrium, fear of the rapid and continuous loss of value makes people unwilling to hold on to the money for any longer than is necessary to convert it into tangible goods or services. Hyperinflation is therefore characterized by very rapid depreciation and a dramatic increase in the velocity of the circulation of money.

Although the most famous (because it was the first to have been systematically observed and because it was deemed to have made Hitler possible), the hyperinflation of Weimar-era Germany, where Papiermark-denominated prices came to double every 3.7 days, takes "only" fourth place in the hyperinflationary hall of fame. The first place belongs to post-World War II Hungary, where in July 1946 pengő-denominated prices doubled every 15 hours. The second place belongs to Mugabe-era Zimbabwe, where in November 2008 Zimbabwean dollar-denominated prices doubled every 24.7 hours. And the third place belongs to Balkans War-era Yugoslavia, where in January 1994 Yugoslav dinar-denominated prices doubled every 1.4 days.

German_Papiermark_-_1_DEM_1920_-_Obverse

In Germany the inflationary cycle had already begun during World War I, when the paper mark went from 20 to the pound (at the time worth around 4 dollars) to 43 to the pound by war’s end. Although the paper mark continued tumbling downward, spiking momentarily in the first quarter of 1920, it recovered somewhat afterwards and remained more or less stable until the first half of 1921. The London Ultimatum, however, which demanded war reparations to be paid in gold marks to the tune of 2,000,000,000 per annum, plus 26 per cent of the value of German exports, triggered a new leg of rapid depreciation. The French policy towards Germany, backed by the British, was virulently vengeful, and imposed an onerous burden on Germany’s economy: in fact, the amount demanded was in excess of Germany’s total holding of gold or foreign exchange. The deficit in the budget, of which reparations contributed a third, was made up by discounting government Treasury bills and printing money.

Despite a momentary respite during the first half of 1922, during which international reparations conferences caused the paper mark to stabilize at around 320 to the dollar, the lack of an agreement triggered a new crisis, resulting in a phase of hyperinflation. Fuelled by the German government’s policy of passive resistance to French occupation of the Ruhr, which from January 1923 meant subsidizing through money-printing an anti-occupation strike by German workers, said hyperinflation escalated exponentially until November that year, when the introduction of the Rentenmark finally stopped the economic rot. By that time the German currency had fallen to 4,200,000,000,000 paper marks to the dollar.

Fergusson attributed the extraordinary self-inflicted destruction of Germany’s monetary system to a failure on the part of its government and the Reichsbank to link currency depreciation to money printing. Depreciation was initially believed to have been the result of the Entente powers forcing up foreign exchange through market manipulations. The German public appeared equally ignorant, believing that prices were going up as opposed to the value of their currency going down. Anti-Semitic explanations, not refuted by visible examples of vulgar Jewish ostentation, financial acrobatics, and profiteering, were also popular. The consequent misery and economic chaos showed the weaknesses of the chartalist monetary standard.

Combining a clear exposition with contemporary private diary entries, When Money Dies offers a harrowing narrative. The Weimar inflation obliterated savings, devoured wages, and caused assets to be distributed in the most unfair ways imaginable. As the wealthy had the means to protect themselves and even take advantage of the situation, and as the working class was organized and able to secure wage increases through frequent strikes and union demands, the main victims were the middle class -- professionals, civil servants, the rentier class, and those on fixed incomes, who were reduced to penury and destitution. Landlords were also affected as a result of government-imposed rent controls.

The industrialist class, on the other hand, was not unhappy with the inflation, as they benefited from it. Indeed, some industrialists and profiteers made fortunes at everyone’s expense. Individual industrialists were able to acquire assets (usually fixed assets and raw materials) for minuscule amounts by securing large bank loans that became virtually worthless within weeks because of the low interest rates. Said industrialists also welcomed the virtual destruction of fiscal burdens: high inflation also made tax assessments worthless by the time taxes were due.

One of the effects of inflation was to turn everyone into a speculator -- in the stock market, in foreign exchange, in commodities, and in assets, which offered protection from depreciation as well as profit opportunities. Foreign visitors in Germany were also able to take advantage of a notable differential between the official rate of foreign exchange and prices in real terms within Germany, where in relation to solid currencies like the dollar and the pound goods and services were available at bargain prices.

Children_Playing_with_Money_Weimar

Rudolf_Havenstein

For most of the inflationary period Germany enjoyed full employment, but the incentive to work hard and save was progressively eroded by the increasing fugacity of purchasing power. The main concern was somehow keeping ahead of the mark’s accelerating depreciation, so as to be able to still obtain the necessities of life. Payday had to come with increasing frequency, and finally daily in order to keep up with prices, which rose with increasing rapidity until they changed by the hour. Part of the rise was due to the need to factor in depreciation occurring between the time the money was paid to the merchant and the time the merchant was able to dispose of it. It became the norm to spend money as quickly as it was obtained and for shops to sell out in a single day. Coffees were ordered two at a time, to avoid having to pay more for any second cup. Barter, bribes, and corruption also became universal.

Despite the prodigious nominal amounts, people’s main problem during this period was a chronic scarcity of money. Dozens of paper mills and printing firms and thousands of printing machines working night and day could not keep up with prices, causing the total amount of money in circulation constantly to decrease in real terms. Obviously, the more furious the money printing, the more acute the rate of depreciation, but his was something apparently not understood by Rudolf Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank (German central bank), whose main preoccupation was ensuring there was enough money available to meet economic needs. Depreciation accelerated to such a degree that it eventually made more sense directly to burn money in the stove than first use it to purchase wood.

Burning_Money_at_the_Stove_Weimar

The scarcity of money was reflected in the government’s budget, which dwindled to paltry amounts in real terms, further aided by the breakdown of the taxation system and the ridiculously low price of stamps and railway fares. By the end of the hyperinflationary cycle, the government’s income was a fraction of 1 percent of its outgoings.

Food became progressively scarce as a result of hoarding and the refusal by farmers to sell their produce against worthless paper. Farmers were, in fact, relatively well off until almost the end, as they were able to produce their own food. City-dwellers were forced to sell their possessions in exchange for comestibles, and those visiting friends or relatives witnessed the latter’s flats gradually emptying of furniture, paintings, and any movable asset of value. Once these were gone, looting and farm raids was the next step for some. For others it was starvation and death.

German_Papiermark_-_1000000000000_DEM_1923_-_Obverse

The highest denomination note, issued towards the end of 1923, was 100,000,000,000,000 marks (compare with Hungary’s 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 pengő note in 1946). By this time, Dr. Havenstein had the equivalent of 300 ten-tonne train wagons of unissued bank notes awaiting distribution for the day. The mark, however, had become not only worthless but largely shunned in favour of foreign currencies and tangible assets. Also in circulation were not only the official Papiermark issued by the central bank but also emergency money issued by municipalities, local banks, and even private firms in the effort to make up for money shortages. Such an environment had made it impossible to ascertain with precision the value of anything, as sellers used their own indexes and asked whatever they thought they could get people to pay for their goods or services. The chaos and economic breakdown was so complete that Germany by late 1923 was on the verge dismemberment, with the republic having long been under siege from both Communists and the Far Right. Hitler, who attempted his Beer Hall Putsch in November that year, was among the agitators.

The death of Dr. Havenstein and the appointment of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, marked the end of Weimar hyperinflation. This occurred under the auspices of a military dictatorship, comprised of Hans von Streisser, Otto von Lossow, and Gustav von Kahr, appointed by Prime Minister Eugen von Knilling, who, following a period of political violence an assassinations had declared martial law in September 1923. The discounting of Treasury bills was stopped and the Rentenmark -- a temporary currency -- was introduced at the rate of 1,000,000,000,000 Papiermark to 1 Rentenmark; also, debts were largely rescinded, unfairly to the detriment of many. Somehow, the confidence trick worked and a semblance of normality returned. Unfortunately, however, the price of stopping hyperinflation was steep and known in advance: mass unemployment, a sharp economic slowdown, and bankruptcies. The hyperinflation was allowed to carry on as long as it did partly because of an absence of political will to swallow the necessary bitter medicine.

Among the casualties were some of the industrialists and profiteers who were caught out in the hyperinflationary game of musical chairs once the currency reform was enacted. Those who survived and had benefited from the economic conditions were forced to adjust to the dull world of hard work, thrift, small profits, and taxes. Some, like the Jewish-Lithuanian Barmat brothers, still managed to exploit the situation to their advantage: they converted their assets into the new, strong mark and issued loans at extortionate rates of interest (of up to 100 percent) while credit was nearly impossible to find elsewhere. Hyperinflation had bred universal corruption, however -- a world of dog-eat-dog rapacity, opportunism, and pauperized billionnaires, where the worst human instincts flourished and became a matter of survival.

The post-hyperinflationary credit crunch was, not surprisingly followed by a credit boom: starved of money and basic necessities for so long (do not forget the hyperinflation had come directly after defeat in The Great War), many funded lavish lifestyles through borrowing during the second half of the 1920s. We know how that ended, of course: in The Great Depression, which eventually saw the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the National Socialist era.

US_Dollar_-_1000000000000_USD_-_Obverse_and_Reverse_Obama

From the vantage-point of 2010, we see glimpses in Fergusson’s account of the way events might play out in the United States and possibly Western Europe in the coming years, absent any political will to tackle the mountain of public and private debt, the enormous budget deficits, and the stupendous above-growth monetary expansion of the past decade. The crises are likely to be similar in kind, but follow a different order. The credit boom of the 2000s has been followed by the credit crunch of the late 2000s. Analysts of the Austrian school deem us to be in the initial stages of a Second Great Depression, and vaticinate much worse to come.

Personally, I sometimes get tired of the unrelenting pessimism coming from some Austrian-influenced quarters, and wonder whether there is not a morbid curiosity there -- untempered by personal experience -- to witness a catastrophic collapse; but, all the same, I am not going to take chances and risk losing the little I have because I was bored by the truculent fantasies of some cleverer-than-thou commentators. When Money Dies is well worth reading if you are searching for a real-life overview of the sequence of weird phenomena that emerge during a inflationary cycle. Those who can would be well advised to use it and related texts to design in advance coping strategies in the event of monetary failure.

 

PS: For a fictional preview of what a hyperinflationary blowout might look like in Europe and the United States in 2022, see my novel Mister (Iron Sky Publishing, 2009).

HBD: Human Biodiversity

Black Children Do Not Need a Western-Style Education

With regard to the following article:

14 September 2010
New York Times
by Sam Dillon

In many of the nation’s middle schools, black boys were nearly three times as likely to be suspended as white boys, according to a new study, which also found that black girls were suspended at four times the rate of white girls.

School authorities also suspended Hispanic and American Indian middle school students at higher rates than white students, though not at such disproportionate rates as for black children, the study found. Asian students were less likely to be suspended than whites.

The study analyzed four decades of federal Department of Education data on suspensions, with a special focus on figures from 2002 and 2006, that were drawn from 9,220 of the nation’s 16,000 public middle schools.

The study, “Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis,” was published by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization.

The co-authors, Daniel J. Losen, a senior associate at the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Russell Skiba, a professor at Indiana University, said they focused on suspensions from middle schools because recent research had shown that students’ middle school experience was crucial for determining future academic success.

One recent study of 400 incarcerated high school freshmen in Baltimore found that two-thirds had been suspended at least once in middle school.

I am pleased to see the Left providing data that argues for racial segregation in education. We know that, thanks to the valiant efforts of the Left, White educators are now among the most politically correct class there is and the most fearful of being accused of racism, and that, as per today's conventional assumption, colored educators cannot be racist by definition, since racism is a uniquely White pathology; therefore, if Black students are suspended more often, it is because they break the rules more frequently. The only other possible explanation is that the Left has been inept at eradicating racism among educators. It is interesting all the same that the article provides no data with regards to the race of those doing the suspending. Are we to assume they are all White? Or have the Black students been suspended by Black staff?

While of course intended to suggest the persistence of a pernicious chthnonic racism, articles like these can just as well be used to argue that Black students in Western countries would be far better off in schools structured around the specific pedagogic and disciplinary needs of Black students. Forcing White students to have their education disrupted by disorderly Black pupils and exposing the former to the latter's bad example (and violence) is not fair on White students or their parents, who get less value for their considerable investment as a result of school staff having constantly to deal with unruly Black students.

Articles such as Sam Dillon's are irresponsible because they obscure and distort and place White children and their education at risk. (Needless to mention the fact that the article was published by a dubious source.)

For an honest overview, here is a reminder of the 2009 White teacher's account of

by Christopher Jackson
MartyNemko.blogspot.com

Until recently I taught at a predominantly black high school in a southeastern state.

The mainstream press gives a hint of what conditions are like in black schools, but only a hint. Expressions that journalists use like “chaotic” or “poor learning environment” or “lack of discipline” do not capture what really happens. There is nothing like the day-to-day experience of teaching black children and that is what I will try to convey.

One of the most immediately striking things about my students was that they were loud. They had little conception of ordinary decorum. It was not unusual for five students to be screaming at me at once.

It did no good to try to quiet them and white women were particularly inept at trying. I sat in on one woman’s class as she begged the children to pipe down. They just yelled louder so their voices would carry over hers.

So many of them seemed to have no conception of waiting for an appropriate time to say something. They would get ideas in their heads and simply had to shout them out. I might be leading a discussion on government and suddenly be interrupted: “We gotta get more Democrats! Clinton, she good!” The student may seem content with that outburst but two minutes later, he would suddenly start yelling again: “Clinton good!

Anyone who is around young blacks will probably get a constant diet of rap music. Blacks often make up their own jingles, and it was not uncommon for 15 boys to swagger into a classroom, bouncing their shoulders and jiving back

They were yelling back and forth, rapping 15 different sets of words in the same harsh, rasping dialect. The words were almost invariably a childish form of boasting: “Who got dem shine rim, who got dem shine shoe, who got dem shine grill (gold and silver dental caps)?” The amateur rapper usually ends with a claim—in the crudest terms imaginable—that all womankind is sexually devoted to him. For whatever reason, many of my students would often groan instead of saying a particular word, as in, “She suck dat aaahhhh (think of a long grinding groan), she f**k dat aaaahhhh, she lick dat aaaahhh.”

So many black girls dance in the hall, in the classroom, on the chairs, next to the chairs, under the chairs, everywhere. Once I took a call on my cell phone and had to step outside of class. I was away about two minutes but when I got back, girls had lined up at the front of the classroom and were convulsing to the delight of the boys.

Blacks, on average, are the most directly critical people I have ever met: “Dat shirt stupid. Yo’ kid a bastard. Yo’ lips big.” Unlike whites, who tread gingerly around the subject of race, they can be brutally to the point. Once I needed to send a student to the office to deliver a message. I asked for volunteers, and suddenly you would think my classroom was a bastion of civic engagement. Thirty dark hands shot into the air. My students loved to leave the classroom and slack off, even if just for a few minutes, away from the eye of white authority. I picked a light-skinned boy to deliver the message. One very black student was indignant: “You pick da half-breed.” And immediately other blacks take up the cry, and half a dozen mouths are screaming, “He half-breed.”

For decades, the country has been lamenting the poor academic performance of blacks and there is much to lament. There is no question, however, that many blacks come to school with a serious handicap that is not their fault. At home they have learned a dialect that is almost a different language. Blacks not only mispronounce words; their grammar is often wrong. When a black wants to ask, “Where is the bathroom?” he may actually say “Whar da badroom be?” Grammatically, this is the equivalent of “Where the bathroom is?” And this is the way they speak in high school. Students write the way they speak, so this is the language that shows up in written assignments.

It is true that some whites face a similar handicap. They speak with what I would call a “country” accent that is hard to reproduce but results in sentences such as “I’m gonna gemme a Coke.” Some of these country whites had to learn correct pronunciation and usage. The difference is that most whites overcome this handicap and learn to speak correctly; many blacks do not.

Most of the blacks I taught simply had no interest in academic subjects. I taught history, and students would often say they didn’t want to do an assignment or they didn’t like history because it was all about white people. Of course, this was “diversity” history, in which every cowboy’s black cook got a special page on how he contributed to winning the West, but black children still found it inadequate. So I would throw up my hands and assign them a project on a real, historical black person. My favorite was Marcus Garvey. They had never heard of him, and I would tell them to research him, but most of them never did. They didn’t care and they didn’t want to do any work.

Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have a completely different view of government from whites. Once I decided to fill 25 minutes by having students write about one thing the government should do to improve America. I gave this question to three classes totaling about 100 students, approximately 80 of whom were black. My white students came back with generally “conservative” ideas. “We need to cut off people who don’t work,” was the most common suggestion. Nearly every black gave a variation on the theme of “We need more government services.”

My students had only the vaguest notion of who pays for government services. For them, it was like a magical piggy bank that never goes empty. One black girl was exhorting the class on the need for more social services and I kept trying to explain that people, real live people, are taxed for the money to pay for those services. “Yeah, it come from whites,” she finally said. “They stingy anyway.”

“Many black people make over $50,000 dollars a year and you would also be taking away from your own people,” I said. She had an answer to that: “Dey half breed.” The class agreed. I let the subject drop.

Many black girls are perfectly happy to be welfare queens. On career day, one girl explained to the class that she was going to have lots of children and get fat checks from the government. No one in the class seemed to have any objection to this career choice.

Surprising attitudes can come out in class discussion. We were talking about the crimes committed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and I brought up the rape of a young girl in the bathroom of the Superdome. A majority of my students believed this was a horrible crime but a few took it lightly. One black boy spoke up without raising his hand: “Dat no big deal. They thought they is gonna die so they figured they have some fun. Dey jus’ wanna have a fun time; you know what I’m sayin’?” A few black heads nodded in agreement.

My department head once asked all the teachers to get a response from all students to the following question: “Do you think it is okay to break the law if it will benefit you greatly?” By then, I had been teaching for a while and was not surprised by answers that left a young, liberal, white woman colleague aghast. “Yeah” was the favorite answer. As one student explained, “Get dat green.”

How the world looks to blacks

One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.” This is one message of liberalism they have absorbed completely. Did you do your homework? “Na, homework racis’.” Why did you get an F on the test? “Test racis’.”

I was trying to teach a unit on British philosophers and the first thing the students noticed about Bentham, Hobbes, and Locke was “Dey all white! Where da black philosophers’?” I tried to explain there were no blacks in eighteenth century Britain. You can probably guess what they said to that: “Dat racis’!” One student accused me of deliberately failing him on a test because I didn’t like black people.

“Do you think I really hate black people? “Yeah.” “Have I done anything to make you feel this way? How do you know?” “You just do.” “Why do you say that?” He just smirked, looked out the window, and sucked air through his teeth. Perhaps this was a regional thing, but the blacks often sucked air through their teeth as a wordless expression of disdain or hostility.

My students were sometimes unable to see the world except through the lens of their own blackness. I had a class that was host to a German exchange student. One day he put on a Power Point presentation with famous German landmarks as well as his school and family. From time to time during the presentation, blacks would scream, “Where da black folk?!” The exasperated German tried several times to explain that there were no black people where he lived in Germany. The students did not believe him. I told them Germany is in Europe, where white people are from, and Africa is where black people are from. They insisted that the German student was racist and deliberately refused to associate with blacks.

Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics. I have learned, for example, that some blacks have “good hair.” Good hair is black parlance for black-white hybrid hair. Apparently, it is less kinky, easier to style, and considered more attractive. Blacks are also proud of light skin. Imagine two black students shouting insults across the room. One is dark but slim; the other light and obese. The dark one begins the exchange: “You fat, Ridario!” Ridario smiles, doesn’t deign to look at his detractor, shakes his head like a wobbling top, and says, “You wish you light skinned.”

They could go on like this, repeating the same insults over and over.

My black students had nothing but contempt for Hispanic immigrants. They would vent their feelings so crudely that our department strongly advised us never to talk about immigration in class in case the principal or some outsider might overhear.

Whites were “racis’,” of course, but they thought of us at least as Americans. Not the Mexicans. Blacks have a certain, not necessarily hostile understanding of white people. They know how whites act, and it is clear they believe whites are smart and are good at organizing things. At the same time, they probably suspect whites are just putting on an act when they talk about equality, as if it is all a sham that makes it easier for whites to control blacks. Blacks want a bigger piece of the American pie. I’m convinced that if it were up to them they would give whites a considerably smaller piece than whites get now, but they would give us something. They wouldn’t give Mexicans anything.

What about black boys and white girls? No one is supposed to notice this or talk about it but it is glaringly obvious: Black boys are obsessed with white girls. I’ve witnessed the following drama countless times. A black boy saunters up to a white girl. The cocky black dances around her, not really in a menacing way. It’s more a shuffle than a threat. As he bobs and shuffles he asks, “When you gonna go wit’ me?”

There are two kinds of reply. The more confident white girl gets annoyed, looks away from the black and shouts, “I don’t wanna go out with you!” The more demure girl will look at her feet and mumble a polite excuse but ultimately say no.

There is only one response from the black boy: “You racis’.” Many girls—all too many—actually feel guilty because they do not want to date blacks. Most white girls at my school stayed away from blacks, but a few, particularly the ones who were addicted to drugs, fell in with them.

There is something else that is striking about blacks. So many of them seem to have no sense of romance, of falling in love. What brings men and women together is sex, pure and simple, and there is a crude openness about this. There are many degenerate whites, of course, but some of my white students were capable of real devotion and tenderness, emotions that seemed absent from most blacks—especially the boys.

Black schools are violent and the few whites who are too poor to escape are caught in the storm. The violence is astonishing, not so much that it happens, but the atmosphere in which it happens. Blacks can be smiling, seemingly perfectly content with what they are doing, having a good time, and then, suddenly start fighting. It’s uncanny. Not long ago, I was walking through the halls and a group of black boys were walking in front of me. All of a sudden they started fighting with another group in the hallway.

Blacks are extraordinarily quick to take offense. Once I accidentally scuffed a black boy’s white sneaker with my shoe. He immediately rubbed his body up against mine and threatened to attack me. I stepped outside the class and had a security guard escort the student to the office. It was unusual for students to threaten teachers physically this way, but among themselves, they were quick to fight for similar reasons.

The real victims are the unfortunate whites caught in this. They are always in danger and their educations suffer. White weaklings are particularly susceptible, but mostly to petty violence. They may be slapped or get a couple of kicks when they are trying to open a bottom locker. Typically, blacks save the hard, serious violence for each other.

There was a lot of promiscuous sex among my students and this led to violence. Black girls were constantly fighting over black boys. It was not uncommon to see two girls literally ripping each other’s hair out with a police officer in the middle trying to break up the fight. The black boy they were fighting over would be standing by with a smile, enjoying the show he had created. For reasons I cannot explain, boys seldom fought over girls.

Pregnancy was common among the blacks, though many black girls were so fat I could not tell the difference. I don’t know how many girls got abortions, but when they had the baby they usually stayed in school and had their own parents look after the child. The school did not offer daycare.

Aside from the police officers constantly on campus, security guards are everywhere in black schools—we had one on every hall. They also sat in on unruly classes and escorted students to the office. They were unarmed but worked closely with the three city police officers who were constantly on duty.

There was a lot of drug-dealing at my school. This was a way to make a fair amount of money but it also gave boys power over girls who wanted drugs. An addicted girl—black or white—became the plaything of anyone who could get her drugs.

One of my students was a notorious drug dealer. Everyone knew it. He was 19 years old and in eleventh grade. Once he got a score of three out of 100 on a test. He had been locked up four times since he was 13.

One day, I asked him, “Why do you come to school?”

He wouldn’t answer. He just looked out the window, smiled, and sucked air through his teeth. His friend Yidarius ventured an explanation: “He get dat green and get dem females.”

“What is the green?” I asked. “Money or dope?” “Both,” said Yidarius with a smile.

A very fat student interrupted from across the room: “We get dat lunch,” Mr. Jackson. “We gotta get dat lunch and brickfuss.” He means the free breakfast and lunch poor students get every day. “Nigga, we know’d you be lovin’ brickfuss!” shouts another student.

Some readers may believe that I have drawn a cruel caricature of black students. After all, according to official figures some 85 percent of them graduate. It would be instructive to know how many of those scraped by with barely a C- record. They go from grade to grade and they finally get their diplomas because there is so much pressure on teachers to push them through. It saves money to move them along, the school looks good and the teachers look good.

Many of these children should have been failed but the system would crack under their weight if they were all held back.

How did my experiences make me feel about blacks? Ultimately, I lost sympathy for them. In so many ways they seem to make their own beds. There they were in an integrationist’s fantasy—in the same classroom with white students, eating the same lunch, using the same bathrooms, listening to the same teachers—and yet the blacks fail while the whites pass.

One tragic outcome among whites who have been teaching for too long is that it can engender something close to hatred. One teacher I knew gave up fast food—not for health reasons but because where he lived most fast-food workers were black. He had enough of blacks on the job. This was an extreme example but years of frustration can take their toll. Many of my white colleagues with any experience were well on their way to that state of mind.

There is an unutterable secret among teachers: Almost all realize that blacks do not respond to traditional white instruction. Does that put the lie to environmentalism? Not at all. It is what brings about endless, pointless innovation that is supposed to bring blacks up to the white level. The solution is more diversity—or put more generally, the solution is change. Change is an almost holy word in education, and you can fail a million times as long as you keep changing. That is why liberals keep revamping the curriculum and the way it is taught. For example, teachers are told that blacks need hands-on instruction and more group work.

Teachers are told that blacks are more vocal and do not learn through reading and lectures. The implication is that they have certain traits that lend themselves to a different kind of teaching.

Whites have learned a certain way for centuries but it just doesn’t work with blacks. Of course, this implies racial differences but if pressed, most liberal teachers would say different racial learning styles come from some indefinable cultural characteristic unique to blacks. Therefore, schools must change, America must change. But into what? How do you turn quantum physics into hands-on instruction or group work? No one knows, but we must keep changing until we find something that works.

Public school has certainly changed snce anyone reading this was a student. I have a friend who teaches elementary school and she tells me that every week the students get a new diversity lesson, shipped in fresh from some bureaucrat’s office in Washington or the state capital. She showed me the materials for one week: a large poster, about the size of a forty-two inch flat-screen television. It shows an utterly diverse group—I mean diverse: handicapped, Muslim, Jewish, effeminate, poor, rich, brown, slightly brown, yellow, etc.—sitting at a table, smiling gaily, accomplishing some undefined task. The poster comes with a sheet of questions the teacher is supposed to ask. One might be: “These kids sure look different, but they look happy. Can you tell me which one in the picture is an American?”

Some eight-year-old, mired in ignorance, will point to a white child like himself. “That one.”

The teacher reads from the answer, conveniently printed along with the question. “No, Billy, all these children are Americans. They are just as American as you.”

This is what happens at predominately white, middle-class, elementary schools everywhere. Elementary school teachers love All of the Colors of the Race, by award-winning children’s poet Arnold Adoff.

These are some of the lines they read to the children: “Mama is chocolate … Daddy is vanilla … Me (sic) is better … It is a new color. It is a new flavor. For love. Sometimes blackness seems too black for me, and whiteness is too sickly pale; and I wish every one were golden. Remember: long ago before people moved and migrated, and mixed and matched … there was one people: one color, one race. The colors are flowing from what was before me to what will be after. All the colors.”

Teaching as a career

It may come as a surprise after what I have written, but my experiences have given me a deep appreciation for teaching as a career. It offers a stable, middle-class life but comes with the capacity to make real differences in the lives of children. In our modern, atomized world children often have very little communication with adults—especially, or even, with their parents—so there is potential for a real transaction between pupil and teacher, disciple and master.

A rewarding relationship can grow up between an exceptional, interested student and his teacher. I have stayed in my classroom with a group of students discussing ideas and playing chess until the janitor kicked us out. I was the old gentleman, imparting my history, culture, personal loves and triumphs, defeats and failures to young kinsman. Sometimes I fancied myself Tyrtaeus, the Spartan poet, who counseled the youth to honor and loyalty. I never had this kind intimacy with a black student, and I know of no other white teacher who did.

Teaching can be fun. For a certain kind of person it is exhilarating to map out battles on chalkboards, and teach heroism. It is rewarding to challenge liberal prejudices, to leave my mark on these children, but what I aimed for with my white students I could never achieve with the blacks.

There is a kind of child whose look can melt your heart: some working-class castaway, in and out of foster homes, often abused, who is nevertheless almost an angel. Your heart melts for these children, this refuse of the modern world.

Many white students possess a certain innocence; their cheeks still blush. Try as I might, I could not get the blacks to care one bit about Beethoven or Sherman’s march to the sea, or Tyrtaeus, or Oswald Spengler, or even liberals like John Rawls, or their own history. Most of them cared about nothing I tried to teach them. When this goes on year after year, it chokes the soul out of a teacher, destroys his pathos, and sends him guiltily searching for The Bell Curve on the Internet.

Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom, and leave you convinced that that intimacy is really a form of kinship. Without intending to, they destroy what is most beautiful—whether it be your belief in human equality, your daughter’s innocence, or even the state of the hallway.

Just last year I read on the bathroom stall the words “F**k Whitey.” Not two feet away, on the same stall, was a small swastika.

The National Council for the Social Studies, the leading authority on social science education in the United States, urges teachers to inculcate such values as equality of opportunity, individual property rights, and a democratic form of government. Even if teachers could inculcate this milquetoast ideology into whites, liberalism is doomed because so many non-whites are not receptive to education of any kind beyond the merest basics.

It is impossible to get them to care about such abstractions as property rights or democratic citizenship. They do not see much further than the fact that you live in a big house and “we in da pro-jek.” Of course, there are a few loutish whites who will never think past their next meal and a few sensitive blacks for whom anything is possible, but no society takes on the characteristics of its exceptions.

Once I asked my students, “What do you think of the Constitution?” “It white,” one slouching black rang out. The class began to laugh. And I caught myself laughing along with them, laughing while Pompeii’s volcano simmers, while the barbarians swell around the Palatine, while the country I love, and the job I love, and the community I love become dimmer by the day.

I read a book by an expatriate Rhodesian who visited Zimbabwe not too many years ago. Traveling with a companion, she stopped at a store along the highway. A black man materialized next to her car window. “Job, boss, (I) work good, boss,” he pleaded. “You give job.”

“What happened to your old job?” the expatriate white asked. The man replied in the straightforward manner of his race: “We drove out the whites. No more jobs. You give job.”

At some level, my students understand the same thing. One day I asked the bored, black faces staring back at me. “What would happen if all the white people in America disappeared tomorrow?”

“We screwed,” a young, pitch-black boy screamed back. The rest of the blacks laughed.

I have had children tell me to my face as they struggled with an assignment. “I cain’t do dis,” Mr. Jackson. “I black.”

The point is that human beings are not always rational. It is in the black man’s interest to have whites in Zimbabwe but he drives them out and starves. Most whites do not think black Americans could ever do anything so irrational. They see blacks on television smiling, fighting evil whites, embodying white values. But the real black is not on television, and you pull your purse closer when you see him, and you lock the car doors when he swaggers by with his pants hanging down almost to his knees.

I have been in parent-teacher conferences  that broke my heart: the child  pleading with his parents to take him out of school; the parents convinced their child’s fears are groundless. If you love your child, show her you care — not by giving her fancy vacations or a car, but making her innocent years safe and happy. Give her the gift of a not-heavily black school.

Mr. Jackson now teaches at a majority-white school.

It is clear that the few who purchased Black slaves in their day made a lamentable choice. Their imports, and the subsequent efforts to make the best out of a bad job by attempting to integrate them into a White society, have caused needless problems for those who have followed.

As to educating Black children in general, personally I find it wrong-headed and misguided. Some are teachable and can achieve in White societies, but I would go further than advocating simple segregation, as many do not belong in an education system at all. Where their ancestors originally came from there was never any need for systematic education in the way we understand it: had there been such a need, they would have invented it and implemented it on their own, and 18th- and 19th-century White explorers of Sub-Saharan Africa would have found it long in operation when they visited the region. Systematically educating Blacks in accordance to an academic curriculum is an imposition by Whites of their own values and standards on another race, which does not necessarily in all cases or to the same degree share such values or standards; it is the expression of an ethnogenic impulse to measure all races according to the degree to which they deviate from or approximate to Whiteness. This is a weird form of ethnocentrism about which a subset of Whites, particularly those who self-identify as progressives (progress being another Western concept), seem wholly unaware.

A single-speed, one-size-fits-all education system is difficult enough in a racially homogeneous society. In a racially heterogeneous society, there is all the more reason to adopt a more context-sensitive approach. In a society where there is a permanent Black population, some Black children -- those with the aptitude -- will benefit from education; but those without the aptitude would be better off trained with essential skills and practical knowledge, rather than "educated." As long as the progressive-egalitarian ideas of the Left have currency, however, reform will remain impossible. 


EMBED-Ghetto Girls Fight in Classroom - Watch more free videos

Zeitgeist

Vocabulary Malfunctions

I was unaware of Laura Schlessinger's existence until just recently, when she surfaced in the news in connection with a recent edition of her radio show. It seems an Afro-American caller, seeking advise with her mixed marriage, was offended because she had to hear Schlessinger use the word 'nigger' while the latter commented on the language often found in Afro-American television shows. Of course, the incident is being tediously reported as a "racist outburst," and Schlessinger, who is product of a mixed Jewish/Italian marriage, has since apologised for using the vocable, claiming to have felt mortified by what she now views as an erroneously articulated point of philosophy. Having listened to the audio, however, I find the apology (as I usually do with these types of incident) both amusing and contemnible. During the offending segment Schlessinger is undoubtedly arrogant and obnoxious, showing a proclivity, more appropriate for an opinionated comedian than for a marriage advisor, to interrupt abrasively and talk over her caller. But the points she makes are true.

Firstly, Afro-Americans are indeed over-sensitive and they have indeed been agitated by a smattering of race hate organisations. Everyone with sense knows this. And, certainly, the Afro-American with the chip on the shoulder, ready to take offence and detonate with aggrieved racial rhetoric at the slightest perceived infraction has become a subject of mockery, indeed a cliché, on this side of the Atlantic. (Having said this, Afro-Caribbean and other dark-skinned citizens here are rapidly learning from their North American muses.)

And secondly, Whites in the United States are indeed so non-racist generally, that they, like the Whites in the rest of the Western world, are prepared to act against their own best interests in order to prove their own virtue (mostly to themselves) and satisfy their own abstract conceptions of justice: Schlessinger mentions their having elected a Black man for president -- a Black man, by the way (although she does not say this), with a Muslim father, possibly not even born within the United States’ jurisdiction, who for 20 years sat in the pews of a church predicated on anti-White racial hatred, listening to bizarre anti-White diatribes, which he condoned and approved, offering even generous financial patronage; Schlessinger mentions the election of a Black president, not needing perhaps also to mention White support over the past half century for innumerable anti-racist initiatives, programmes, policies, and legislation -- or the fact that today, when a White person commits even a minor social infraction (by, for example, using a disfavoured vocable), the ensuing White condemnation and apologies take apocalyptic proportions, often evincing a pathological self-hatred.

A sane person in Schlessinger's place (it seems too much to ask in her particular case) would have apologised for a lack of manners, but otherwise iterated the above points even more forcefully, attacking the race hate agitators without quarter, and demanding the opprobrium of the citizenry as well as the immediate cessation of government support for the minority race hate organisations.

The Schlessinger incident reminds me of the 2006 "Niggergate" involving another entertainer, Michael Richards, of Seinfield fame. As will be remembered, Richards, frustrated by uncouth and obstreperous Afro-Americans during a stand-up comedy routine at The Laugh Factory, exploded with a fiery tirade, which included liberal use of the forbidden term, "nigger." Richards subsequently crawled into a hole and wished the Earth would swallow him up, and even telephoned Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (!), to beg them on his knees for forgiveness. Suppressed frustration, heated for decades in the pressure cooker of political correctness, ruptured its containment and blew out with a piercing hiss, until the relief in pressure permitted the fissure to be sealed.

Such incidents highlight that even politically correct citizens are internally stressed by their own political correctness. As time passes, and ill-conceived historical redresses morph into calculated excesses, the stress might eventually prove unendurable for some, and cause not just occasional vocabulary malfunctions but permanent defections. Even so, I am convinced that most ordinary politically correct Whites will sooner endure any humiliation rather than risk being ostracised, and will only abandon their negative identity when faced with a counter-cultural bandwagon speeding towards them and about to run them over.   

Tomislav Sunic has in recent years made an important observation about former Communists in Eastern Europe: once Communism came crashing down, almost overnight the Communists "recycled" themselves as free-market capitalists. Sunic has suggested that we are likely to see an analogous phenomenon in the West at some future point: when the system of multiculturalism and political correctness finally implodes, its former supporters will likely recycle themselves as its most vehement opponents, and will probably emphatically assert that they never believed in it in the first place.

Exit Strategies

The Book of James

I recently read James Edward’s book, Racism, Schmacism: How Liberals Use the 'R' Word to Push the Obama Agenda. I was quite interested in it because in his three-hour weekly radio show, The Political Cesspool, James’ treatment of the racism smear is not dissimilar to my own.

The book is – as you might expect from its author – a short, easy, and especially funny read, being comprised mostly of James’ witty commentary on the last few years’ worth of news stories covering alleged White racism. Said stories are discussed very much like in James’ show, and an abundance of internet sources are provided to facilitate independent investigation. Needless to say that the stories are absolutely ridiculous, defying belief in some cases, even for someone whose inbox is flooded daily with the reports of White ‘racism’ collected by Google’s news alerts. A reader can expect to roll his eyes, shake his head, and / or find his trachea rippling with laughter practically on every page.

There is the case, why not, of the federal hate crime investigation triggered by a ham sandwich; and there is the case of a mayor’s lengthy written apology to a Black citizen for allowing police officers to eat bananas in public. There are also several examples of White so-called conservatives being far more paranoid, obnoxious, and vociferous in their denunciations of supposed White racism than the usual liberal suspects. I was astounded to read, for example, that in at least one case, said conservatives even complained about their not being condemned vigorously enough in the liberal media; and that a conservative radio talk show host branded high gasoline prices racist because they encouraged farmers to use corn for the production ethanol, when that corn could be going to feed African children.

There is also, however, a serious message beneath this bestiary of political correctness; and it boils down to five simple theses:

1. Modern mainstream culture in America defines a racist as a White person; and a White person as a racist, everywhere and always, forever and constantly;

2. Those who peddle accusations of racism hate Whites and seek to gain advantages at the expense of Whites; anti-racists, even White ones, are anti-White, always and everywhere;

3. Modern Whites are cowards, who have allowed themselves to be imprisoned by a word;

4. When accused of racism, it is pointless for a White person to argue, deny, rebut, or explain: he is a racist, end of discussion;

5. The only appropriate response when accused or racism is derision.

Points four and five I have argued myself, most recently in my article for The Occidental Observer, where I discuss the anti-A3P smears in the New York Daily News and the Huffington Post. Points one to three, although beyond argument to anyone who has been paying attention, are home truths sadly yet to be recognized by most White folk on either side of the Atlantic. For this reason, because recognition is a necessary precondition for dismantling the anti-White culture of guilt, apologies, and reparations, James has pitched his book beyond his immediate constituency: its welcome purpose is to enlighten the benighted, not just preach to the converted.

No doubt James’ clean conscience, sunny disposition, and lighthearted disregard for matching his views and opinions to those approved by race relations professionals are proving an exasperating irritant for both them and adepts of the anti-racist egalitarian cult, so popular among smelly underachieving Molotov-hurling Marxist youths. Already we are seeing an escalation of attacks against James and his show. To my mind this only confirms the correctness of his approach. As Finnish nationalist Kai Murros, author of Revolution – And How to Do It in a Modern Society, wrote to me last year:

The ruling elite is afraid of our laughter, because it is the one thing they cannot control and laughter is a sure sign that people are already in process of signing off their loyalty to the system.

Of course, the system is predicated on fear – it needs to be, as it is otherwise too fragile to be sustainable. Its weakness becomes ever more apparent as it commits ever more of its resources to extinguishing laugher outside its designated ‘safe’ zones. In as much as ridicule is a projection of power, therefore, we will recognize the erosion of establishment power whenever its smug ridiculing of Whiteness gives way to obstreperous denunciations of, and vehement over-reactions against, assertions of White power.

But these are only humor’s destructive properties. Humor also has decisively constructive ones, which must not be overlooked. Firstly, it is associated with relaxation, and thus tends to convey among observers the sense that a person is in control of a situation – people tend to follow whomever appears to be in control of a situation. Secondly, it is associated with youth, and thus imbues anything positively linked to it with a sense of vitality and dynamism – this is how the Left won the young, and cast itself as a forward-looking movement. And, finally, it is both associated with and has the capacity to generate among observers a sense of well-being and good will, which is always preferable to nay-saying and prophecies of doom. Therefore, I think James' friendly and easy-going tone is more likely to make the non-ideological part of his audience more receptive to his message than the mass of demographic projections and crime statistics upon whose dissemination the racialist Right has so far based much of its political strategy. The projections and the statistics are necessary to inform intellectual arguments without a doubt, but, politically, they cannot achieve the revolution in consciousness that precedes fundamental change, because the anti-White culture is not founded on reason or rational data, but on irrational emotions, urges, and aspirations.

The true value of Racism, Schmacism, then, is its demonstration of the tone, attitude, and approach that need to become integral to pro-White campaigning.

Edwards_James_-_Racism_Schmacism

 

This is not to say that the cultural war will be won by laughing and cracking jokes; the cultural war remains serious business. This is to say, rather, that pro-White campaigning will not be successful without its first becoming user-friendly.

Finally, I need to mention that there is scope here for a follow-up. Passing mention is made somewhere of the need to twin derision for the racism smear with an aggressive counter-attack. This is an important point that needs detailed treatment, because while humor can work miracles, there are times when seriousness is required in order to be taken seriously. Yet, when there is no point responding to an accusation of racism with denials and explanations, when said denials and explanations are, in fact, the accuser’s desired response (because it wastes time and energy counterproductively), one needs to target the accuser, not his accusation.

This is what I had James do in Mister, where he makes a fiery appearance in a not-too-distant future as the governor of Tennesssee. Unfortunately, he is also targeted for an assassination attempt, but for now he needs not worry about that, as the friendly folk at the $PLC are still content with just savaging him in their magazine. Let us wish James good health and fortune so he may continue to fight the forces of political correctness with the same valour and gallantry he has displayed so far.

You can order your copy of Racism, Schmacism here.

Euro-Centric

Children on Marriage in 21st Century Britain

July being a popular month for weddings, a local magazine distributed in my area published this month a column bringing us children’s perspectives on marriage. Below you will find a rather instructive selection of quotes. The sample comes from one of the most desirable areas in the country.

Children

General

“You got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. You know, football, she really should like football and she should keep the crisps and dips coming.” Alan, aged 10.

“No person really decides before they grow up who they are going to marry. God decides it all way before and you get to find out later who you are stuck with.” Kristen, aged 10.

“It gives me a headache to think about that stuff. I’m just a kid. I don’t need that kind of trouble.” Will, aged 7.

Children_3

What is the right age to get married?

“Twenty three is the best age because you know the person forever by then!” Camille, aged 10.

“No age is good to get married. I think you would be a fool to get married!” Freddie, aged 6.

Children_5

How can a stranger tell if two people are married?

“Well, you might have to guess on whether they seem to be yelling at the same kids.” Derrick, aged 8.

Children_6

What do most people do on a date?

“Dates are for having fun and people should use them to get to know each other. Even boys have something to say if you listen long enough.” Lynette, aged 8.

“On the first date they tell each other lies and that usually gets them interested enough to go for a second date.” Martin, aged 9.

Children_7

Is it better to be single or married?

“It’s better for girls to be single but not for boys. Boys need someone to clean up after them.” Anita, aged 9.

Children_8

How would you make a marriage work?

“Tell your wife that she looks pretty even if she looks like a truck!!!!!” Ricky, aged 10.

 

Euro-Centric

The British Obama

When the Labour Party lost the May 2010 election, I did not exactly share their sadness. This was not because I saw the incoming government as representing fundamental change; rather, this was because the Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had already proven so fantastically destructive that it was difficult to imagine anything topping five more years of Labour inferno.

The electoral repulsion of Gordon Brown triggered a leadership contest within this wretched party, an event about which Derek Turner has already written very amusingly for Taki’s Magazine. Absent evidence of complete disarray, crisis, depression, despair, tiffs, quarrels, clashes, faction, division, schism, disunity, schizophrenia, paranoia, catatonia, paralysis, and radical soul-searching, a Labour leadership election is a potent soporific. Who wants to listen to a freak show of fossilized Marxists pontificating about fairness and equality? Life is too short.

But when the electorate holds back from crushing them into oblivion, when the government ends up being a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, the prospect of a Labour comeback cannot be dismissed: their next leader might well end up being our future Prime Minister.

What, then, is Labour offering its supporters? At one end of the spectrum stands the current favourite, David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary. He is followed by a succession of yawns. At the other end is the outsider candidate, Diane Abbott, the MP for the London borough of Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

David Miliband is the son of Ralph Miliband. The elder Miliband, born in Belgium, immigrated to Britain in 1940 to escape the Nazis, and went on to become, during the 1960s and 1970s, “one of Britain’s most celebrated intellectual disciples of Karl Marx.” He was an iconic figure of the Labour Left, “who famously frowned on the concept of ‘private property,’” and “whose writings influenced two generations of Socialist leaders.” Based in the highly fashionable London district of Primrose Hill, “once a popular haunt with radical intellectuals,” which “hosted a strong community of Jewish émigrés,” David is the classic Champagne socialist, a species that sees no contradiction between applying a Robin Hood ethos with other people’s money and indulging a personal lifestyle of Oriental opulence: the 22 April 2007 article in the Daily Mail, "How David Miliband Avoided Inheritance Tax on Marxist Father’s £1.5million House," provides an educational overview of the Milibands’ attitude to property and taxes. (Hint: they are not entirely harmonious with what they prescribe for you and me.)

 Ralph_Miliband

Also (arguably) educational were claims made in the Russian newspaper Tvoi Den in 2007, when David Miliband, then Foreign Secretary, angered Putin’s government through his handling of the Alexander Litvinenko affair.

The newspaper said that in the Twenties the Foreign Secretary's grandfather, Samuel, then Shimon, Miliband, a native of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw, had fought under the command of Trotsky ‘eliminating’ white Russians opposed to Communism.

Miliband’s tenure as Foreign Secretary was indeed stellar. Among the various examples of his genius as Britain's top diplomat, we must include his relationship with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who came to afford Miliband the full benefit of his industrial-strength candor: it was reported by the British press on one occasion that during a telephone conversation between the two men, Lavrov asked Miliband, “Who the fuck are you to lecture me?” Miliband experienced a lengthy tirade, it seems, complete with a generous sprinking of four-letter words, in response to comments about Russia’s operations in Georgia. Miliband’s visit to Russia a year later was similarly a resounding diplomatic success.

David_Miliband

Thus, we have some indications as to how Britain’s prestige in the world would be elevated under a possible David Miliband premiership later in the decade.

Yet, before we can relax, we need to take a look at the "outsider" contestant: Diane Abbott, the main topic of this article. With bookies assessing her chances of victory at 50/1, an Abbott premiership might seem a distant possibility. But if you dismiss her out of hand you have already forgotten that at one point in the not too distant past there was one Barack Obama, who appeared out of nowhere and transitioned from non-entity to world leader in a matter of months. Not unlike Ms. Abbott, he added colour to an otherwise dreadfully vanilla selection of candidates, and was said to represent fundamental change -– a profound and historical transformation of the political landscape. Ms. Abbott has sustained some criticism in the media, where she has earned accolades such as “the stupidest woman in Britain,” but it is particularly auspicious for the Black MP that her entering the leadership contest afforded immense relief to the lilly-white consciences of her fellow party members: these worthy servants of the people, you see, were very uncomfortable with the (until-then) uniformly fair complexion and monotonous maleness of the contestants. (Hint: this might have resulted in accusations of racism and sexism, and therefore of hypocrisy and Champagne socialism.)

Born of Jamaican parents in 1953, Diane Abbott earned her place in the history books by happening to be Black and female in 1987, when she was elected Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Since then she has remained popular with her constituents, who have re-elected her with comfortable majorities on every election. Her borough is ethnically diverse (25% Black, 41% non-White in 2006) and one of the most economically deprived in the country, occupying the bottom 5% nationwide. Jo Dillon of the Independent on Sunday has described her as “an icon of the Left”.

Diane_Abbott_2

Her various campaigns, outlined on her website, cover wide range of issues. A common denominator in not a few of them, however, is a strong identification, combined with an acute preoccupation, with the interests and concerns of her racial brethren: both foreign and British-born Blacks (also known here as “West Indians,” or “Afro-Caribbeans”). Witness, for example, Ms. Abbott’s motive for opposing the changes in Air Passenger Duty introduced by the last Labour government:

Government proposals within the Bill are to charge passengers higher Air Passenger Duty the further the distance they fly out of the UK. But rather than being based on the exact destination the passenger is flying to, the Duty will be based on the capital city of the country the passenger is flying to. This means that flying to the Caribbean will always incur a higher Air Passenger Duty than flying to the USA, even though many places in the USA are further away from London than the Caribbean is.

Or her reasons for being active in the civil liberties campaign:

When I first came to Parliament in 1987 I spoke out against Stop and Search laws which infringed on the civil liberties of young Black men. [...]

I am concerned that anti-terror laws brought in since the September 11th attacks will have the same detrimental effect on relations between the police and Muslim communities.

Or her thoughts on the current approach to the fight against crime:

[G]un crime is not just about tough sentencing. Sadly 80 per cent of gun crime in London is 'black on black,' often involving boys in their teens. As a black woman and the mother of a teenage son this is frightening and wholly unacceptable. A fundamental and persistent problem is the continuing educational underachievement of black boys in particular.

Or her efforts in the battle for education:

I have campaigned for many years on educational issues. In particular I have researched, organised and spoken out on the way in which the education system fails children of African and Afro-Caribbean descent. In the mid-nineties I began organising events in Hackney under the title “Hackney Schools and the Black Child”. [...]

Most recently I held debates in the House of Commons on the disproportionately high rate of school exclusions of Black boys and the lack of diversity in London teaching workforce.

Or her objections to, and actions against, the proposed reforms to legal aid:

They are aimed at value for money, but in reality mean that many smaller firms will be run out of business by factory-like law firms that can afford to take on legal aid cases for less money. Black and ethnic minority-run firms are more likely to be new or small firms, and are more likely to be dependent on legal aid work and therefore are hugely threatened by the reforms. Whilst I welcome the Government's wish to get value for money in legal aid spending, it is clear that among other flaws the legal aid reform will decimate black and minority ethnic solicitors.

Many black and ethnic minority legal firms were set up as a reaction to the institutional racism that prevented ethnic minority lawyers from progressing in their careers. [...]

In May I tabled a number of written questions to the Ministry of Justice to try and gage what could be done to halt the reforms. Following this I held a Westminster Hall debate arguing that the reforms were indirectly discriminatory against black and ethnic minority solicitors, firms and clients.

Or her issues with the national DNA database, created by Labour, and currently holding 4.5 million profiles:

In 2007, Lady Scotland confirmed that three-quarters of the young black male population would soon be on the DNA database...They had generally been arrested because they fit the physical description of a suspect -- the suspect being described as a young black man.

My, if Ms. Abbott is as sturdy a bulwark for the race-specific interests and concerns of her White constituents -- 59% in her borough -- as she is for those of her Afro-Caribbean voters, I would imagine that they feel no need at all for a party like the BNP. (Well, if they do, the Left-wing Institute for Public Policy Research has an ingenious solution: more immigration.)

Immigrants_in_Whitechapel

Ms. Abbott’s preoccupation with negritude is, like Obama’s, fully integrated with far Left credentials. After Labour came to power in 1997, a secret conspiracy was hatched at the highest levels of government to make Britain more multicultural. This led to previous legal immigration averages to quintuple, reaching figures in excess of a quarter of a million people per year. Most of these came from impoverished, Third World countries. And among them were 1 million Muslims, who added themselves to the 1.5 million accumulated over the previous centuries. According to a questionnaire published in The Guardian newspaper, however, Ms. Abbott disagrees strongly with the statement “[i]mmigration levels are too high” (in the United Kingdom). This is perhaps not entirely surprising, as the former Labour Home Secretary, David Blunket (who is White), said in 2003 that there was “no obvious limit” to the number of immigrants that could settle in the United Kingdom.

Indeed, being a citizen of the world, Ms. Abbott’s generosity extends well beyond this green and pleasant land. The last Labour government transformed the British economy, tripling the national debt, septupling government borrowing, and turning the Conservative’s 3.3 percent economic expansion of 1997 into a 5.0 percent economic contraction in 2009. It also managed to give away 60% of the nation’s gold reserves at $275 an ounce. Eventually, with Britain facing a downgrade in its credit rating, harsh spending cuts and tax rises had to be implemented, including an increase in Value Added Tax (VAT), which is hoped will bring in an extra £13,000 million a year. Ms. Abbott is pleased, however, because the foreign aid budget, which in the 2008/2009 year spent £5,500 million helping the poor in Africa and South Asia, has been increased to £7,800 million for the 2010/2011 year. In fact, even though half of Britons want less money spent on foreign aid and more spent relieving domestic poverty and improving our under-funded public services, she strongly disagreed with the idea that Britain spends too much money on foreign aid. Ms. Abbott must have failed to notice that the VAT increase -- which disproportionately affects the poor, since it increases prices on nearly all goods and services -- could have been cut to less than half by suspending foreign aid.

And as no far Left politician is complete without punitive tax proposals, Abbott has bold plans of her own. On 16 July the BBC reported

As well as introducing a financial transaction tax and increasing the coalition's bank levy, she said she would create a new “wealth tax."

“I am working on the details of it but it would be a wealth tax directed at assets rather than income,” she said.

In other words, if your house is too large, Abbott will ask you please to move out, sell it, and hand a big chunk of your money to the government. And if you are one of those doomsday eccentrics who hoard gold in case of a currency crisis, she will want you to share your stash with the government. So, if you are intelligent and industrious, if you have prospered in life, Diane Abbott has her eye on you.

Of course, none of this represents an electoral barrier to a committed Marxist supporter: they love these political positions, irrespective of race, age, gender, disability, or sexual orientation -- and they know how to guilt ordinary people into supporting them, or at least not criticizing them. 

There remain, however, a few minor problem areas that would need to go into the memory hole before Diane Abbott is ready to storm into 10 Downing Street.

Firstly, there is the matter of her refusing to pay her own evening taxi fares. Ordinary folk traveling to and from work are expected by their employers to pay for their own transport. But Diane Abbott expects the long-suffering taxpayers to fund hers to the tune of £1,100 per year, even though she already claims £142,000 annually in expenses, and is paid the largest allowable income supplement for living in London.

Finnish_SS_Nurse

Secondly, there is the matter of her thinking that “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls” are unsuitable for working as nurses in the National Health Service, because they “may have never met a Black person before.” Fortunately, however, on this occasion Marc Wadsworth, executive member of the Anti-Racist Alliance, came to the rescue by pointing out that that year’s Miss Finland was Black, of part Nigerian descent. And, all the same, Ms. Abbott still commanded support from fellow Black MPs: Bernie Grant, MP for a neighbouring constituency, said “She is quite right… Scandinavian people don’t know black people -- they probably don’t know how to take their temperature.”

Then there is the matter of her parallel career as a BBC pundit. Instigated by a complaint from a fellow MP, the Committee for Standards and Privileges found in 2004 that Ms. Abbott had failed to declare her earnings (£17,300) from her appearances in the BBC programme This Week in the Register of Members Interests, as per the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members and paragraph 54 (c) of the Guide to the Rules. Ms. Abbott, who accepted full responsibility, was required to apologize to the House of Commons. Fortunately, however, Ms. Abbott emerged unscathed from the 2009 expenses scandal, where MPs of all stripes were found to have been dipping into the public purse to the tune of many thousands of pounds to fund their lifestyles. Here she has an advantage over her fellow contestant, David Miliband, who was found to have illegitimately claimed £30,000 over five years in repairs, decorations, and furnishings for his private residence (he apologized went found out, but did not return any of the taxpayers' money).

Diane_Abbott_5

And then there is the question of whether Ms. Abbott will, like Obama, succeed in ushering in a new era of post-racial politics. Statements like the one below, recorded in the Daily Mail, suggest it may be too soon yet to get our hopes up:

I never encountered any overt racism at school, though I do occasionally wonder whether the attempts made to dissuade me from applying for Oxbridge were linked to my colour.

And, finally, there is the matter of her snubbing public education for her son, in favour of a £10,000-per-year selective private school (Note: Marxists are supposedly against private education and selecting students for ability). The matter generated considerable media attention in 2003, not least because our far Left politician had previously savaged Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for also sparing their children from the public school system. It seems she instructed her former husband to keep quiet about her choice, aware that it was “indefensible” and “intellectually incoherent.” Worse still, her explanation (“West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children”) renewed accusations of racism, which for some implied that White mothers loved their children less than Black mothers. Indeed, many found it rather puzzling that Ms. Abbott could take this view yet dread the thought of her child being schooled alongside others raised by West Indian mums, just like her.

We will have to see how this exciting contest unfolds. Will the best man win? Will subterranean racism influence the decision? Is Britain ready to transform its political landscape? For the time being, Ms. Abbott thinks she has fair chance, despite the odds:

I'm not comparing myself to Barack Obama because he’s a once in a life-time figure but two years ago no-one could have imagined a black man as US President. If that was possible in the US, I think people can change their ideas in Britain as well.